browns lost it

[gmb45]

that total idiot brown is now bo--ocking them strikers,there isnt enough jobs for our own people and hes still letting foreigners come here to work it has to stop and he has to go.theres going to be civil war in this country before long mark my words

[caveman_nige]

I am not taking a side, or i think i am not, but you have to see the bigger picture here. The same feeling is rife amongst many countries of the world right now. With national economies failing and people losing their homes and/or livilihoods it is easy to start feeling this way and believe that only employing British people for British jobs. The same feelings are very strong across the pond also... This policy is known as protectionism, apart from it basically being illegal under the WTO free trade agreements it will not actually help us but plunge the global economy into something far deeper than we could possibly want and keep the UK economy in the poo for far longer... We must remember also that British companies operate throughout the world and will go bankrupt if the other countries they operate/trade in with a British labour force start chucking them out.

The fact that trade protection hurts the economy of the country that imposes it is one of the oldest but still most startling insights economics has to offer. The idea dates back to the origin of economic science itself.

One may well think that any market failure could be a reason for protection. Indeed, economists fell into this trap for nearly two centuries, until the 1950s. Economists now argue, instead, that protection is an inappropriate and inefficient way to correct for domestic market failures. For example, if wages do not adjust quickly enough when for demand an industry’s product falls, as was the case with U.S. auto workers losing out to foreign competition, the appropriate policy is for the government to intervene—or possibly to remove intervention—in the labour market, directly aiming remedial policy at the source of the problem. This is the principal insight from the post–World War II theory of commercial policy: it significantly narrows the rationale for protectionism and has revolutionized the conventional understanding of the relative merits of free trade and protectionism.
Protectionism is frequently criticised as harming the people it is meant to help, instead of aiding them; these critics often support free trade. Some have denounced critics of protectionism as ideologues whose opinions are shaped more by ideology than facts. However, nearly all economists are supporters of free trade. Economic theory, under the principle of comparative, shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses; as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.
Economists have argued that free trade helps third world workers, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad of other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions. It has even been suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of third world workers are being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries. Additionally, workers in the third world only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges benefit both sides. That they accept low-paying jobs from first world companies shows that the jobs they would have had otherwise are even worse.
Alan Greenspsan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticised protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."
Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantalist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about primarily due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding World War 1 and 2. According to Frederic Bastiat, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."
Gordon Brown for all his faults could be help accountable for much of what is happening around us, but the other political parties who be in the same boat. The political parties all like to stand there and slagging each other off behind their fake contemptuous smiles saying that it was the other parties fault, but laying blame right now will not get us out of it. We can all understand the state of mind of the population during this time but we must look at the bigger picture again to get out of it, then we put measures in place to try an prevent such global economic failures happening again.. As you will have heard on the news that the current economic situation is unprecedented and now guide book exist for getting out it..
Revolutions and talk of them do not happen in the UK and to suggest so is folly. If you wish to make an impact then think when you are in a shop buying your groceries, think about buying British. Our farmers, like our car manufacturers need the British pound. Check to see that your bacon is British, as is your cheddar cheese etc etc… Protect your economy by keeping your hard earned pound with in the British economy. It’s the best we can do while the, the bigger picture will have played out by those with the know how and influence to do so…
Gordon Brown in a speech entitled Britain and the Global Economy said worldwide cooperation was needed to prevent countries acting in their own interests to the detriment of their neighbours.
He said "only a truly international response" could speed up the recovery of the global and British economies.
"We have not yet seen the same protectionism in trade (as we did) with (the) beggar-thy-neighbour policies of the 30s," he said.
"And I will fight hard to ensure we do not.
"But we also need to ensure we do not exercise a new form of financial mercantilism of retreat into domestic lending and domestic financial markets."
In what could be seen as a direct appeal to US President Obama who, during his election campaign, condemned free trade agreements, Mr Brown also said: "We face a choice”.
"We could allow this crisis to start a retreat from globalization”.
"As some want, we could close our markets - for capital, financial services, trade and for labour - and therefore reduce the risks of globalization”.
"But that would reduce global growth, deny us the benefits of global trade and confine millions to global poverty."
The Prime Minister did say, however, that the world should not be pessimistic but view today's problems as "the birth-pangs of a new global order" and a chance to create "a better future"


Some will try and create chaos out of such situations, but we must all try and keep sane even when we see what is happening on the news…

Getting off my soapbox now and going cook some dinner, British lamb with British veg…

[gmb45]

I am not taking a side, or i think i am not, but you have to see the bigger picture here. The same feeling is rife amongst many countries of the world right now. With national economies failing and people losing their homes and/or livilihoods it is easy to start feeling this way and believe that only employing British people for British jobs. The same feelings are very strong across the pond also... This policy is known as protectionism, apart from it basically being illegal under the WTO free trade agreements it will not actually help us but plunge the global economy into something far deeper than we could possibly want and keep the UK economy in the poo for far longer... We must remember also that British companies operate throughout the world and will go bankrupt if the other countries they operate/trade in with a British labour force start chucking them out.

The fact that trade protection hurts the economy of the country that imposes it is one of the oldest but still most startling insights economics has to offer. The idea dates back to the origin of economic science itself.

One may well think that any market failure could be a reason for protection. Indeed, economists fell into this trap for nearly two centuries, until the 1950s. Economists now argue, instead, that protection is an inappropriate and inefficient way to correct for domestic market failures. For example, if wages do not adjust quickly enough when for demand an industry’s product falls, as was the case with U.S. auto workers losing out to foreign competition, the appropriate policy is for the government to intervene—or possibly to remove intervention—in the labour market, directly aiming remedial policy at the source of the problem. This is the principal insight from the post–World War II theory of commercial policy: it significantly narrows the rationale for protectionism and has revolutionized the conventional understanding of the relative merits of free trade and protectionism.
Protectionism is frequently criticised as harming the people it is meant to help, instead of aiding them; these critics often support free trade. Some have denounced critics of protectionism as ideologues whose opinions are shaped more by ideology than facts. However, nearly all economists are supporters of free trade. Economic theory, under the principle of comparative, shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses; as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.
Economists have argued that free trade helps third world workers, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad of other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions. It has even been suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of third world workers are being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries. Additionally, workers in the third world only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges benefit both sides. That they accept low-paying jobs from first world companies shows that the jobs they would have had otherwise are even worse.
Alan Greenspsan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticised protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."
Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantalist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about primarily due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding World War 1 and 2. According to Frederic Bastiat, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."
Gordon Brown for all his faults could be help accountable for much of what is happening around us, but the other political parties who be in the same boat. The political parties all like to stand there and slagging each other off behind their fake contemptuous smiles saying that it was the other parties fault, but laying blame right now will not get us out of it. We can all understand the state of mind of the population during this time but we must look at the bigger picture again to get out of it, then we put measures in place to try an prevent such global economic failures happening again.. As you will have heard on the news that the current economic situation is unprecedented and now guide book exist for getting out it..
Revolutions and talk of them do not happen in the UK and to suggest so is folly. If you wish to make an impact then think when you are in a shop buying your groceries, think about buying British. Our farmers, like our car manufacturers need the British pound. Check to see that your bacon is British, as is your cheddar cheese etc etc… Protect your economy by keeping your hard earned pound with in the British economy. It’s the best we can do while the, the bigger picture will have played out by those with the know how and influence to do so…
Gordon Brown in a speech entitled Britain and the Global Economy said worldwide cooperation was needed to prevent countries acting in their own interests to the detriment of their neighbours.
He said "only a truly international response" could speed up the recovery of the global and British economies.
"We have not yet seen the same protectionism in trade (as we did) with (the) beggar-thy-neighbour policies of the 30s," he said.
"And I will fight hard to ensure we do not.
"But we also need to ensure we do not exercise a new form of financial mercantilism of retreat into domestic lending and domestic financial markets."
In what could be seen as a direct appeal to US President Obama who, during his election campaign, condemned free trade agreements, Mr Brown also said: "We face a choice”.
"We could allow this crisis to start a retreat from globalization”.
"As some want, we could close our markets - for capital, financial services, trade and for labour - and therefore reduce the risks of globalization”.
"But that would reduce global growth, deny us the benefits of global trade and confine millions to global poverty."
The Prime Minister did say, however, that the world should not be pessimistic but view today's problems as "the birth-pangs of a new global order" and a chance to create "a better future"


Some will try and create chaos out of such situations, but we must all try and keep sane even when we see what is happening on the news…

Getting off my soapbox now and going cook some dinner, British lamb with British veg…

are you a politician nige or related to brown ? this country is a mug they will take in anybody because the gov is frightened to say no.why do people want to come to the uk more because we are a soft touch we dont like to say no,well its about time we did.and brown is still a useless c--t

[caveman_nige]

No mate, just a man who is trying to get by in this world but who had studied economics in the past.. I don't do politics but I do not walk with blinkers or shouting revolution because i do not like what i see around me... I will not be bullied into an opinion or led blindly by an alarmist media or double talking polititians..

You do not like what you see happening, nobody does... But we must not become those who we despise... This country will come out of this, it will hurt for along time, the debts of this will take a generation to pay off, but it will not get better in any shape or form by anarchic statements, it will only destroy our country for us and our children.. And who wants that...

[gmb45]

No mate, just a man who is trying to get by in this world but who had studied economics in the past.. I don't do politics but I do not walk with blinkers or shouting revolution because i do not like what i see around me... I will not be bullied into an opinion or led blindly by an alarmist media or double talking polititians..

You do not like what you see happening, nobody does... But we must not become those who we despise... This country will come out of this, it will hurt for along time, the debts of this will take a generation to pay off, but it will not get better in any shape or form by anarchic statements, it will only destroy our country for us and our children.. And who wants that...

we could argue the toss all day nige we are all entitled to our opinions,the bitterness in this country espescially is growing day by day, and racism which i no way agree with. we must look after our own first