Brexit and moving London forward

We need fast and fierce action to nip the rising tide of racist attacks in the bud. Windows of shops with 'foreign' owners/managers are smashed in Lewisham; there are people in Hackney who haven't dared go out for several days because they are immediately subjected to racist abuse on the streets. It is everywhere.

You are continuing with the line that London can be separate from the UK. I wish people would forget this line and give us here suggestions that work for the UK as a whole after Brexit. Do you mean after the Bombings in '39 etc or the bombings by the IRA. The War bombings were received patriotically by the Media and population at that time and everyone responded with a positive attitude, by the time of the IRA terrorists the British media had changed and was not so patriotic against this enemy, and therefor did not promote a common attitude to the population. Then more recently the Muslim bombers at Kings Cross,
great emphasis was put on the mixed ethnicity of the killed and injured as if that was the most important thing about those bombings. Where was the 'Community', there isn't One!
Only selfish perceived interests for London. Don't keep on about London being different, it is as the Capital and the Largest city in Europe, not because there are many non Brits here. This pushing of ethnicity by the Mass Media and many writers here does not help with good ideas to keep London ahead of others Financial Centres. London needs to be Efficient and show our traditional British/ English culture which as been respected all over the world, unfortunately the over emphasis on its Multicultural life does detract from that image. Keep London's reputation as a city which brings together the best brains of Britain and don't get side tracked with fighting against a positive future for Brexit.

There would be huge problems with the rest of England wanting secure borders all round London.

". I would like to think that with automation the working hours will also slowly decrease, give people more opportunities to study and better themselves or to leisure by going traveling, going to a spa, or something not so expensive, reading or going for a walk or a simple picnic"

However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them fot it?

Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production.

However this means that any country taking this route must be reliant on every other country doing the same thing. Otherwise production will simply shift to countries that don't have this extra layer of tax built in.

Our recent Brexit has declared that Britain is against such co-operation with other countries, "we won't be told what to do by other countries" being a recurrent mantra among the Brexiteers. Politicians of course will have recognised that this refusal to co-operate is nonsense, even those who supported Leave. In practice, any such moves will be presented as Britain 'choosing to co-operate' however much the outcomes are forced on Britain by circumstance.

"So what would be the option to keep generating the money but not producing the items? Well, one way would be more expensive item but I would rather suggest payment in installments like a mortgage."

Again the problem lies in your perception of cost. Companies price their goods by economic theory, not in relation to the cost of the components. The difference between a long-lifed item and a short lifed item may be the few pennies difference between a budget bearing and a standard bearing. As for your staggered payments, this is called Hire Purchase and is usually the source of income notto the manufacturer but the sales outlet/ finance company.

Artificially inflating the cost to allow a 4fold drop in production and sales would again require global agreement, the internationl harmonisaton of tariff rules and agreed standards of longevity and price to prevent some non signatory country (Brexited Britain?) from undercutting those artificial price barriers and selling 'cheap' machines that one could afford to update with all the new and desirable features that two or three years progress brings.

Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances, and a washing machine of 20 years ago uses more water, more soap, more electricity than its current day counterpart. Yet today people think it right that we should legislate to prevent such outdated goods being used. ( Cars which meet emissions standards of 20 years ago, when they were made, but not the emissions standards of today, a different thread on this site, for example). How do you square producing items with a 20 year life when they will be 'illegal' within 5, partiticularly if you are artificially inflating the price to compensate companies for a reduced production, itself made necessary by the desire for a "Citizen's Income" inflated to reflect what one would like our living standard to be, in relation to those in a 'develo-ping country' abel and willing to work for much less.

"How about people who move from another country? Why should they live in "slum" dormitories?"

Well, one reason is automation. A person is simply part of a production machine, a cheap, re-programmable robot responding to a limited set of instructions, many of which relate to their vulnerability and fallibility. The moment they become more expensive than the capital investment in an automated system, they are redundant. The higher one sets a 'minimum wage' the more likely it is that automation will replace that set of humans..

This takes us into the realm of agreements like TTIP.and an understanding of the Human Rights Act. The HRA states that a government is obliged to obey its own laws and cannot wilfully introduce a retrospective law that makes a successful defence unlawful.

Examples include instances where the State has 'lost' cases because the law says that there is a time limit on an action and the State has exceeded that time limit. The HRA means that the state cannot suddenly pass a law retrospectively allowing itself a few extra days to complete the task on which the limelimit has been set.

The TTIP was intrended to allow firms the same sort of rights, it would be illegal for countries to suddenly and wilfully invent laws that made a firm's products that met current legislation illegal, and even more so to fine companies for products that were legal when sold but have been made illegal by subsequent legislation.

It is quite foreseeable that a goverment seeking popularity over the issue of employment and living standards ( do we raise or drop global living standards to a level?) would campaign on the basis of declaring automated systems taxable, or illegal and that improvements in living standard would be funded by fining firms who had highly automated system or sold them. ( It's more or less what the Leave Campaign were perceived to do by many people," we will make Britain better by punishing other people, erecting walls around 'our way of life'" and it had a certain resonance among the resentful part of the population).

". I would like to think that with automation the working hours will also slowly decrease, give people more opportunities to study and better themselves or to leisure by going traveling, going to a spa, or something not so expensive, reading or going for a walk or a simple picnic"

However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them fot it?

Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production.

However this means that any country taking this route must be reliant on every other country doing the same thing. Otherwise production will simply shift to countries that don't have this extra layer of tax built in.

Our recent Brexit has declared that Britain is against such co-operation with other countries, "we won't be told what to do by other countries" being a recurrent mantra among the Brexiteers. Politicians of course will have recognised that this refusal to co-operate is nonsense, even those who supported Leave. In practice, any such moves will be presented as Britain 'choosing to co-operate' however much the outcomes are forced on Britain by circumstance.

"So what would be the option to keep generating the money but not producing the items? Well, one way would be more expensive item but I would rather suggest payment in installments like a mortgage."

Again the problem lies in your perception of cost. Companies price their goods by economic theory, not in relation to the cost of the components. The difference between a long-lifed item and a short lifed item may be the few pennies difference between a budget bearing and a standard bearing. As for your staggered payments, this is called Hire Purchase and is usually the source of income notto the manufacturer but the sales outlet/ finance company.

Artificially inflating the cost to allow a 4fold drop in production and sales would again require global agreement, the internationl harmonisaton of tariff rules and agreed standards of longevity and price to prevent some non signatory country (Brexited Britain?) from undercutting those artificial price barriers and selling 'cheap' machines that one could afford to update with all the new and desirable features that two or three years progress brings.

Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances, and a washing machine of 20 years ago uses more water, more soap, more electricity than its current day counterpart. Yet today people think it right that we should legislate to prevent such outdated goods being used. ( Cars which meet emissions standards of 20 years ago, when they were made, but not the emissions standards of today, a different thread on this site, for example). How do you square producing items with a 20 year life when they will be 'illegal' within 5, partiticularly if you are artificially inflating the price to compensate companies for a reduced production, itself made necessary by the desire for a "Citizen's Income" inflated to reflect what one would like our living standard to be, in relation to those in a 'develo-ping country' abel and willing to work for much less.

"How about people who move from another country? Why should they live in "slum" dormitories?"

Well, one reason is automation. A person is simply part of a production machine, a cheap, re-programmable robot responding to a limited set of instructions, many of which relate to their vulnerability and fallibility. The moment they become more expensive than the capital investment in an automated system, they are redundant. The higher one sets a 'minimum wage' the more likely it is that automation will replace that set of humans..

This takes us into the realm of agreements like TTIP.and an understanding of the Human Rights Act. The HRA states that a government is obliged to obey its own laws and cannot wilfully introduce a retrospective law that makes a successful defence unlawful.

Examples include instances where the State has 'lost' cases because the law says that there is a time limit on an action and the State has exceeded that time limit. The HRA means that the state cannot suddenly pass a law retrospectively allowing itself a few extra days to complete the task on which the limelimit has been set.

The TTIP was intrended to allow firms the same sort of rights, it would be illegal for countries to suddenly and wilfully invent laws that made a firm's products that met current legislation illegal, and even more so to fine companies for products that were legal when sold but have been made illegal by subsequent legislation.

It is quite foreseeable that a goverment seeking popularity over the issue of employment and living standards ( do we raise or drop global living standards to a level?) would campaign on the basis of declaring automated systems taxable, or illegal and that improvements in living standard would be funded by fining firms who had highly automated system or sold them. ( It's more or less what the Leave Campaign were perceived to do by many people," we will make Britain better by punishing other people, erecting walls around 'our way of life'" and it had a certain resonance among the resentful part of the population).

"
However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them for it?
Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production."

Ahh, you are already light years ahead. That I guess could be met with nationalization or workers having shares in the company they work for. However, my first suggestion is to reduce working hours to 30 or 32 and find jobs for 1.8 million people on jobseeker's allowance. Part is to reduced hours, part is to automation. It will never be a process from today to tomorrow but it could get started to be implemented now. People will still be needed, just not as many. There would be a discrepancy in wages as if you work fewer hours you earn less money but the new hires could already start on that. At the moment this communal money is in a form of benefits. I am not suggesting at all that it would be an easy process but I would rather look at ways how could it happen rather why it can not.

"Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances,..." The truth is that they can already make the futuristic technology now but it is not implemented because they want people to buy better, newer things all the time, that is why we are having such hard sales and pushy advertising and brain washing. This is why I am talking about a much better and more expensive product that will be modern in 10 years time but it will be therefore more expensive. I'm not saying it is possible for everything because there will be new discoveries but many things are already achievable and are strategically planned how they will be released so that people will keep on shopping.To get companies interested in new way I recommend a new form of payment which would not be hire purchase as you suggested and exists now but the new form of payment that would go to producers of the product. Yes, perhaps too advanced for current economic but why can't we start thinking and working on how t could work?
Or will we wait until we completely destroy the earth, just because we want instant gratification and lazy lives?
We are at the moment of change and we can make it great and we can start putting down fundamentals of the future that is different and better than the past or present.
To really say everything we think we would need a debate and as you pointed out in later posts this is not relevant to the question in this post.

The truth is that the whole country voted. Just because the majority ( which could only be 3 %,,). Of certain parts voted against brexit is neither here or there. It was a vote out. The media and some politicians are the cause if " divisions". Do we hold another general election because the voters may have been misled?
Let's leave the u government but remain in reasonable terms with Europe.
We may not get the best terms but we will trade with Europe and the rest of the world. There us not enough space or time to discuss everything but everyone who voted out knew it was not going to be an easy ride.