Is nationalism wrong?

[monkey104]

Indeed. Yorkshire Tea is very popular, despite it tasting like used dishwater.

U

I don't know if the marketers are clever, or Yorkshire folk are stupid.

 

wash your mouth out! And not with Yorkshire tea either.

[Bob Arctor]

You are wrong on all counts as no one can be excludes on nationality alone. See section A-2 and section B-1 Exclusions, which clearly states who can apply. This is also fairly common with other councils as well.. unless you can show its not!

 

https://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/NovaWeb/Infrastructure/ViewLibraryDocument.aspx?ObjectID=533

 

Just to add.. Being excluded because of nationality would also be racist.

 

You could read this http://www.housing-rights.info/02_2_1_Housing_eligibility_law.php

 

It should be clear from this that while some people who are not UK nationals are eligible for council housing not everyone is and that some very specific conditions have to be met by non-UK nationals (e.g. proving a right to reside) which don't have to be met by UK nationals. There is a big legal difference between having a right to be in the UK and having a right to reside in the UK.

[Anna B]

Is Nationalism (or Protectionism) the opposite of Globalism (Globalization?)

 

That's a genuine question, because if it is the opposite of Globalism, all I can say is Globalization hasn't done ordinary people any favours. But has worked to mostly benefit the big multinational Corporations.

Trump's first move seems to be to try and restore American jobs by imposing tarifs on foreign made imports, thus stopping jobs being outsourced overseas. That, to my mind, seems to benefit the ordinary American people, but it hasn't been properly explained on TV, (usually a sign that we are not meant to know,) or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Can someone who understands how this all works explain, or offer comment.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Anna B

[El Cid]

Is Nationalism (or Protectionism) the opposite of Globalism (Globalization?)

 

That's a genuine question, because if it is the opposite of Globalism, all I can say is Globalization hasn't done ordinary people any favours. But has worked to mostly benefit the big multinational Corporations.

Trump's first move seems to be to try and restore American jobs by imposing tarifs on foreign made imports, thus stopping jobs being outsourced overseas. That, to my mind, seems to benefit the ordinary American people, but it hasn't been properly explained on TV, (usually a sign that we are not meant to know,) or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Can someone who understands how this all works explain, or offer comment.

 

I am sure someone will hark on about protectionism, when in fact it should be described as a good method of raising tax revenue.

 

Look around the globe and you will find policies directed at building economies through industrial subsidies and limiting contracts to local suppliers that arguably run afoul of trade agreements.

Farming has loads of subsidies and food is rarely taxed, what deal was done with Nissan recently, we have enterprise zones, we give workers tax credits so that workers only need low pay, some countries have low corporation tax; many countries make sure that some industries have lower costs than others.

 

Trump has said he will be protectionist, I don't believe that the Dollar has gone down - like Sterling.

[unbeliever]

I am sure someone will hark on about protectionism, when in fact it should be described as a good method of raising tax revenue.

 

Look around the globe and you will find policies directed at building economies through industrial subsidies and limiting contracts to local suppliers that arguably run afoul of trade agreements.

Farming has loads of subsidies and food is rarely taxed, what deal was done with Nissan recently, we have enterprise zones, we give workers tax credits so that workers only need low pay, some countries have low corporation tax; many countries make sure that some industries have lower costs than others.

 

Trump has said he will be protectionist, I don't believe that the Dollar has gone down - like Sterling.

 

Protectionism inhibits long term growth.

It's often done to protect one group, e.g. European farmers, but it reduces long term growth and thereby hurts everybody. The positives of protectionism are obvious and direct. The negatives are diffuse and indirect. It looks good but hurts everybody long term.

[TimmyR]

Protectionism inhibits long term growth.

It's often done to protect one group, e.g. European farmers, but it reduces long term growth and thereby hurts everybody. The positives of protectionism are obvious and direct. The negatives are diffuse and indirect. It looks good but hurts everybody long term.

 

The idea that growth is necessary for people to have good lives is flawed. We can't grow forever - new economic models need to be taught that are not based around growth. The rich want growth because it makes them richer and they are in power so policy is shaped to always focus on economic growth.

 

Secondly, to reiterate what others have said above, what is certainly wrong is the blaming of immigrants for everything that is wrong in the country. Take job losses in the states, a big part of trumps campaign - this is largely due to automation not immigrants.

Edited January 24, 2017 by TimmyR

[El Cid]

It's often done to protect one group, e.g. European farmers, but it reduces long term growth and thereby hurts everybody. The positives of protectionism are obvious and direct. The negatives are diffuse and indirect. It looks good but hurts everybody long term.

 

BRITAIN has been "failed spectacularly" by the European Union trade deals as exports being sent across the continent are now lower than they were before the UK joined the bloc, says the Express.

 

So free trade has not benefited the UK.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/673585/British-trade-exports-EU-European-Union-lower-before-single-market-UK

[unbeliever]

The idea that growth is necessary for people to have good lives is flawed. We can't grow forever - new economic models need to be taught that are not based around growth. The rich want growth because it makes them richer and they are in power so policy is shaped to always focus on economic growth.

 

Secondly, to reiterate what others have said above, what is certainly wrong is the blaming of immigrants for everything that is wrong in the country. Take job losses in the states, a big part of trumps campaign - this is largely due to automation not immigrants.

 

This is so wrong I barely know where to start. Growth in GDP/capita is everything and the scope for it is limitless. You could not be more wrong. I know rich people benefit more and I don't care. Poor people benefit and that's all that matters.

Edited January 24, 2017 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

This is so wrong I barely know where to start. Growth in GDP/capita is everything. You could not be more wrong. I know rich people benefit more and I don't care. Poor people benefit and that's all that matters.

 

Import taxes benefit the exchequer, that can help the rich or poor depending on the Government.

 

Some of the countries that most wholeheartedly imbibed the free trade doctrine pushed by the World Bank and IMF have done much worse than the countries that have dared to be different.

 

South Korea and Japan feature prominently among the ranks of the different. These countries did indeed open their markets and reduce tariffs, quotas and subsides. But they only did so after a lengthy period of protecting their industries and agriculture from external competition. Until 1964, Japan effectively subsidised all of its export industries by totally exempting them from tax. It also imposed huge tariffs and quotas on imports. South Korea conducted a similar policy.

 

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/myth-5-everyone-wins-under-free-trade

[Obelix]

BRITAIN has been "failed spectacularly" by the European Union trade deals as exports being sent across the continent are now lower than they were before the UK joined the bloc, says the Express.

 

So free trade has not benefited the UK.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/673585/British-trade-exports-EU-European-Union-lower-before-single-market-UK

 

I'll confidently state that without reading the article because it's eht Express its full of lies and that is actually says no such thing.

 

If it was a respectable journal like the Guardian, times or Telegraph I'd think differently but the Express is just the lefty version of the Mail and about as truthful.