Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

bouncingboredom wrote:

To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.

The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.

The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.

That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).

bouncingboredom wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.

I'm genuinely baffled how you've come to this conclusion. "There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck."

This is your first quote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.

Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.

Unfortunately this is not the first time. Bouncingboredom shifts the goalposts whenever he is being proven wrong and then will argue details and pick apart every sentence to prove he is right.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.

Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?

yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..

No-one is shifting focus away from Europe. it's the largest, richest market in the world and will remain so for a long time.

The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.

This does not mean the Japanese will stop selling stuff to Europe in order to sell stuff to Brazil. The Japanese will simply produce more stuff to sell to everyone.

tneva82 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.

Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?

yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..

In any case trade is not a matter of Europe or developing markets. It's Europe AND developing markets.

That's why trade between Japan and the EU keeps growing, and it will keep growing under the new agreement. And even if it grows at a slower pace it will take decades (if ever) for trade with developing countries to catch up.

Speaking about trade purely in GDP and population terms is just looking at the surface. The best baguettes may well be made on a small bakery in a tiny village in the Garonne, but I will never get to know because bread doesn't really travel too well and by the time it gets here will be stale. India may be a large market, but it can't afford a lot of the things we make in Europe... and those they can for the most part are already there: BMWs and manufacturing equipment and jet engines and posh appliances are already there.

If you want to sell a larger portions of the Indian (or Chinese, it doesn't matter) populace you have to go there and make things the Indian way. Like Renault:

Why This $4,000 Renault Is as Disruptive as the Tesla Model 3
Want to see the future of transportation? Spend 96 hours in India.
http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/12579/why-this-4000-renault-is-as-disruptive-as-the-tesla-model-3

And don't think as India as a passive agent. India is an opportunity for some, but also a massive threat for others because trade goes both ways.

 Ketara wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.

The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.

The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.

That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).

There's also the luck of your particular strengths being in demand and societally valued.

Me? I can't do anything with my hands. I've not a creative bone in my body. So if the UK was a labour based economy, I'd be on the backfoot.

But what I am very good at it is facts and figures, bookish pursuits. As a service based economy, not only are there quite a lot of jobs out there, but some that actually pay a decent wage.

Further luck? I've got one of those well paying jobs, which has developed into a career, and will continue for the foreseeable. All with barely a clutch of 22 year old GCSEs under my belt.

Yes, the career progression since I got started is down to hard graft for the most part. But that this job even exists and I happen to be well suited? Absolute blind luck.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No-one is shifting focus away from Europe. it's the largest, richest market in the world and will remain so for a long time.

The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.

This does not mean the Japanese will stop selling stuff to Europe in order to sell stuff to Brazil. The Japanese will simply produce more stuff to sell to everyone.

As somebody said last page, the Chinese and the Indian middle classes are growing, and they have billions of pounds of disposable income to burn.

For sure, China is not as rich as Europe, but it's an upward projection. Hundreds of million of people have been lifted out of poverty these past decades, and that will only continue to improve.

As for Japan, as China starts flexing its economic muscle, and given their historic rivalry, who knows how this will impact on Japan?

I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.

The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.

The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.

That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).

There's also the luck of your particular strengths being in demand and societally valued.

Me? I can't do anything with my hands. I've not a creative bone in my body. So if the UK was a labour based economy, I'd be on the backfoot.

But what I am very good at it is facts and figures, bookish pursuits. As a service based economy, not only are there quite a lot of jobs out there, but some that actually pay a decent wage.

Further luck? I've got one of those well paying jobs, which has developed into a career, and will continue for the foreseeable. All with barely a clutch of 22 year old GCSEs under my belt.

Yes, the career progression since I got started is down to hard graft for the most part. But that this job even exists and I happen to be well suited? Absolute blind luck.

Are you not a wargamer? You can file, glue, paint, spray and varnish miniatures.

That's being creative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.

Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?

yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..

Yeah, but Japan is not the only nation that makes cars. I'm led to believe that the USA makes cars as well.

Granted, I will concede that Japan driving on the left as well is a benefit for those of us who like our 1990s CRX imports

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.

Again you don't steer away anything. You try to sell as much as you can, in Europe or elsewhere.

Trade is not a zero-sum game, if I sell 1.000 Jaguars to China it doesn't mean I have to sell 1.000 less in Europe, I can just make more of them and buy new machinery and hire new employees if needed.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.

Again you don't steer away anything. You try to sell as much as you can, in Europe or elsewhere.

Trade is not a zero-sum game, if I sell 1.000 Jaguars to China it doesn't mean I have to sell 1.000 less in Europe, I can just make more of them and buy new machinery and hire new employees if needed.

I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy

Europe, due to geography, will be on Britain's doorstep for hundreds of millions of years. You can't ignore that.

But as tech continues to 'shrink' the world at an ever increasing pace, and as the web gets better and better, new opportunities open up.

We, Britain, need to have our foot in as many markets as possible, and not overly rely on any one market.

Prudence and flexibility should be our watch words.

We're still going to get sat on by the Big Boys though.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
We're still going to get sat on by the Big Boys though.

I'm not so sure. The EU, China, and the USA, are up to their necks in their own major problems. It's not plain sailing for them, either.

Do their economies dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do their populations dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do they each offer a far wider variety of goods and services than us?

Yes.

We've got less cash to spend on stuff, and less people able to buy stuff.

This is a bad, bad idea.

But it's OK. Because Pigs Ears, apparently. And farmland can become meadows.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy

No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.

When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.

There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.

Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do their economies dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do their populations dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do they each offer a far wider variety of goods and services than us?

Yes.

We've got less cash to spend on stuff, and less people able to buy stuff.

This is a bad, bad idea.

But it's OK. Because Pigs Ears, apparently. And farmland can become meadows.

China's population far far outstrips that of Switzerland, but if you wanted world class healthcare, education, or a place to retire, where would you choose?

Switzerland or China?

A large population is no guarantee of economic success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy

No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.

When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.

There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.

Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.

With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy

No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.

When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.

There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.

Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.

With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.

So you do advocate weakening trade with the EU after all.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy

No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.

When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.

There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.

Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.

With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.

So you do advocate weakening trade with the EU after all.

I'm always happy to trade with Europe, I continent I've long admired, but not at any price.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm always happy to trade with Europe, I continent I've long admired, but not at any price.

Exactly; you're willing to weaken our trading position (and influence) over some perceived improvements to sovereignty.

Thus you are advocating weakening our trade with the EU. I don't get how you can deny that.

To elaborate on that: there is no cake and eat it. You want to leave the single market and customs union because you don't want to take any instruction from EU. That means weakened trade. There's no other option. Leaving the customs union will mean weakened trade.

It's about supply and demand at the end of the day.

What do we actually have to offer? What is it that we're offering in terms of trade that other countries need so badly?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


A large population is no guarantee of economic success.

Exactly. Which is why it's stupid to harm EU trade to try and catch India/China trade, because their large populations don't translate to international buying power.

 Ketara wrote:
For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?

Oh I don't know about that, my brother's girlfriend is a psychology graduate and has a Brown Belt in Taekwondo.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do their economies dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do their populations dwarf our own?

Yes.

Do they each offer a far wider variety of goods and services than us?

Yes.

We've got less cash to spend on stuff, and less people able to buy stuff.

This is a bad, bad idea.

But it's OK. Because Pigs Ears, apparently. And farmland can become meadows.

India and China’s economies don’t dwarf ours, and that’s one of the big problems. China is less than 3 times the size and India is smaller. They simply don’t have the money to buy much from us. A few eye catching wealthy can buy our luxury goods like expensive cars or high end services like architecture to build Olympic stadiums but overall they simply can’t afford to buy from us on any scale. Their middle class may be growing, but that is relative. The expectation is that the Chinese middle class will account for 76% of urban Chinese by 2020. This sounds good, until you take in to account that the definition of middle class in China is a household income of US$9000-US$35000. That is £6000-£25000. Assuming that the average household is two people (some will be one, some will have a child) this puts the average Chinese middle class person with an income of somewhere between £3000 and £12,500, or between poor and very poor in the UK or US.

The belief that China or India is going to suddenly become a market for the goods and services the UK wants to export is to woefully miss understand the economics.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?

Oh I don't know about that, my brother's girlfriend is a psychology graduate and has a Brown Belt in Taekwondo.

I only mentioned bouncers due to boredom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.

We trade with them now and have liberty and sovereignty. Where do you live in the UK because it seems like you are locked up in a sweatshop.

There's a fascinating review here of the divide in views in the membership of the main parties. It shows just how out of touch the vast amount of Tory members are with current realities

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-members-twice-as-likely-to-back-return-of-hanging-than-support-soft-brexit-queen-mary-yougov-poll-finds_uk_5a4d5f0fe4b0b0e5a7aaceb7?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

To save people reading the whole thing I've summarised the views in order of Tories: Labour : LD: SNP

Support for second EU referendum :- 14%: 78%: 91%: 87% (big potential problem for Corbyn here)
Continued membership of single market :- 25% : 87%: 96% : 95%
Continued membership of customs union:- 27% : 85% : 95% : 91%
Supporting the death penalty:- 54% : 9% : 8% : 23%
Young people don't have enough respect for traditional British values :- 77%: 20% : 18%: 23%
Has austerity gone too far:- 11%: 98%: 75%: 93%
Do ordinary people not get their fair share of the nations wealth:- 19% : ? : ? : ?
Support for gay marriage:- 40% : 80% : 80% : 80% (approximates)
Percentage of males in party:- 71% : 53% : 63% : 57%
Average age:- 57: 53 : 52 : 54
Percentage over 65 :- 44% : 29% : 30% : 32%
How much their views count in the party :- 28% : 61% : 75% : 73%

Ketara wrote:That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).

I'm disagreeing with the idea that luck in this sense is the primary factor. If someone puts the work in and does the right things, it almost invariably pays off. Not always, and in some cases it just takes a bit longer, but putting the effort in will reap rewards in the vast majority of cases. Luck is a minor factor.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.

Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.

Steve steveson wrote:Unfortunately this is not the first time. Bouncingboredom shifts the goalposts whenever he is being proven wrong and then will argue details and pick apart every sentence to prove he is right.

Except I haven't shifted the goalposts at all. If you don't like my arguments, or you disagree with them, that's completely fine. Opinions are our own. But don't try and pretend I'm doing something I'm not just because you disagree, or get on some notional high horse about who is proven wrong. From my persepctive of the argument I've shut down every false comment about economics that has been made fairly comprehensively, with facts, but I also acknowledge that everyone has their own opinions and so someone who is very pro-socialism for example is unlikely to accept an argument about the merits of the free market. Thus it comes down to perspectives and biases on who is "right" and who is "wrong".

Kilkrazy wrote:The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.

And that's the critical element. The EU market has low growth prospects for the UK as we've tapped about as much of it as we can barring some sort of revolution. One of the advantages of Brexit is the opportunity to start better tapping into the rest of the world, which is gradually catching the EU up. It represents newer, fresher fields for investment and cooperative trade. The numbers have been sliding against the EU for some time now. We'll still trade with the EU, we're not hauling anchor and disappearing into the Atlantic. But Europe will like diminish in its overall importance as a market.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.

Not really. Luck is a large contributing factor, most people work hard. You can even put it down to being luck as to which parents you were born to, which country you were born in and so on. If you are born to a poor family in Yemen (or even the UK) the chances of getting to the top of the field are slim. If you are born to a father who is the CEO of Rolls Royce your chances are much better simply because they can afford to give you the best education, get you the starting management job.

A simpler example would be two PhD students (lets say Astronomy and finding planets). They are each given an equal number of stars to analyse (say 1000) that they analyse in the same time frame (say 3.5 years). Each sample is randomly selected. PhD student A is unlucky and finds no planets, not because of lack of hard work but simply that statistical sample doesn't have any. On the other hand PhD student B finds a planet in a habitable zone that follow up shows has liquid water. PhD student B gets a Nature paper which then sets them up for a lucrative post doc with a highly rated professor. That then brings more papers, more renown and eventually a professorship and eventually the Astronomer Royal. Neither PhD student worked any harder than the other. One simply was lucky and managed to get that break to the top. The same goes for normal walks of life. Many people work just as hard as each other, the ones that are really successful are the ones that get a chance at the right time. To say people that aren't successful don't work hard is disingenuous.

And that's the critical element. The EU market has low growth prospects for the UK as we've tapped about as much of it as we can barring some sort of revolution. One of the advantages of Brexit is the opportunity to start better tapping into the rest of the world, which is gradually catching the EU up. It represents newer, fresher fields for investment and cooperative trade. The numbers have been sliding against the EU for some time now. We'll still trade with the EU, we're not hauling anchor and disappearing into the Atlantic. But Europe will like diminish in its overall importance as a market.

We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries. Most of these up and coming countries are rich because the west wanted to cheap goods that they could provide. As they become wealthier, that drives higher prices which means their growth will stall. They are successful because of exploitation of the workforce. The trade deficit will only change when our conditions become worse. On top of this the EU will also be courting the same business. Which is likely to be able to get a better deal. An aging 70million or the population with 0.5bn. It's like you see the UK in isolation and that we will be able to access all of this and no one else will.

bouncingboredom wrote:
I'm disagreeing with the idea that luck in this sense is the primary factor. If someone puts the work in and does the right things, it almost invariably pays off. Not always, and in some cases it just takes a bit longer, but putting the effort in will reap rewards in the vast majority of cases. Luck is a minor factor.

See, I'd say the degree of 'luck' involved varies from case to case depending on each individual circumstance. Any kind of generalisation, as we established above, is unlikely to hold water in all, or even most circumstances. The only non-variable is that luck is always present to some degree (be it greater or lesser) in any non-prearranged scenario involving jobhunting.

I'm also not entirely certain I'd agree that hard work almost invariably pays off'. Perhaps if we weigh the payoff in terms of good character building, but otherwise I've known far too many people (and indeed, been the person myself on occasion) work hard and get zip to believe that.

bouncingboredom wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.

Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.

But you haven't. When I asked why you thought it was dubious to claim that hard work is secondary to luck you started explaining why making an effort matters. That wasn't what the argument was about in the first place, (no one was saying making an effort doesn't matter) which is why I'm in turn baffled.

I'll drop the discussion since it's getting off topic though.

Whirlwind wrote:Not really... etc, etc

Me and Ketara were talking about a very different issue. You basically just wasted 5-10 mins of your time.

We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.

Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.

Ketara wrote:See, I'd say the degree of 'luck' involved varies from case to case depending on each individual circumstance.

Fair enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But you haven't. When I asked why you thought it was dubious to claim that hard work is secondary to luck you started explaining why making an effort matters. That wasn't what the argument was about in the first place, (no one was saying making an effort doesn't matter) which is why I'm in turn baffled. I'll drop the discussion since it's getting off topic though.

I thought I explained what making an effort does in practical terms and how it removes most of what people attribute to luck. I dunno, like you say we don't seem to be on same wavelength and it's a bit off topic.

bouncingboredom wrote:

We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.

Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.

The UK has one of the most comprehensive network of trade agreements in the world currently. Literally hundreds of bilaterals and several free trade agreements, with more to come.

The idea that it will be better off on his own is ludicrous. It will take years if not decades just to reach the level of market openness that it currently has from within the EU.

bouncingboredom wrote:

We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.

Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.

Assuming our single market equivalence nonsense allows us to make our own trade deals; any country we find it worth making a deal with will also be of interest to the EU who will want to create a deal. Given that, do you think we'll be able to get a deal as good as a trading union 10 times our size? We might be able to get a deal a bit faster (presumably by conceding on everything), but in the long run will we be able to do anything better outside the EU than within?