BBC exposes BNP

[Solly]

"We don't really"

We do. Look at the figures.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Park Avenue

I'd perhaps agree, if we were at full employment.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1263607,00.html

Gordon Brown will soon be able to announce that Britain has achieved full employment in what will be a highly symbolic moment for Britain's economy, according to the latest Ernst & Young Item Club forecast to be published tomorrow.

The respected Item report will say the world economy is enjoying its best performance for 16 years and that Britain's economy is 'in great shape'.

[Drogue]

Full employment? As in a Labour-fiddling-the-figures full employment? Clearly we still have people without a job, hence we have unemployment. It's low, sure, but we don't have *full* employment.

However full employment isn't a good thing. It's inflexible, inbalances negotiation, causing higher wage increases than economic growth (which is unsustainable) and a so reduces long term growth. Very low unemployment is good, but 0 unemployment isn't, as it makes it hard to impossible to find workers, so fewer companies can start and grow.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue
Full employment? As in a Labour-fiddling-the-figures full employment? Clearly we still have people without a job, hence we have unemployment. It's low, sure, but we don't have *full* employment.

Has the Labour party rebranded itself as "Ernst & Young"?

[Sandman]

We do. Look at the figures.

Please show us.

[Solly]

Our unemployment is at around 2% (full employment) by benefits stats or about 4.5% (not full employment) by international measures.

[KrazyHorse]

Full employment does not equal 0% unemployment Drogue.

In the US economy full employment is generally taken to occur at around 4% unemploymetn. For other economies it might be slightly different.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Our unemployment is at around 2% (full employment) by benefits stats or about 4.5% (not full employment) by international measures.

So? What does that have to do with suggesting that we suffer more from asylum seekers?

[Solly]

Because we take more of them than most European countries.

[Sandman]

Yes, we get more than France and Germany; by a measly ten thousand.

[Solly]

That few?

[Sandman]

No doubt you thought it was half a million a year or something.

[Whaleboy]

Because we take more of them than most European countries.

Not good enough. Show us negative consequences that are directly attributed to asylum seekers and immigration. I don't mean indirect consequences, or consequences caused by discrimination and rejection by folks like you.

[Drogue]

But both indirect causes and causes caused by discrimination as well are still causes, and still an argument against immigration. Whether or not it's directly responsible, which is a point in itself, if something happens with immigration, that wouldn't happen without, and it's undesirable, that's an argument against immigration.

Being the economist I am, I'd just weigth up the economic costs and benefits, look at things like crime and housing, see how these are affected, and decide whats best. That is, if I had the time or inclination to do the work for it. But that's what I'd like the government to do

[Whaleboy]

But both indirect causes and causes caused by discrimination as well are still causes, and still an argument against immigration. Whether or not it's directly responsible, which is a point in itself, if something happens with immigration, that wouldn't happen without, and it's undesirable, that's an argument against immigration.

True, but if you're looking for a reason to directly impose for consistency you need a direct consequence from them.

Furthermore, the best economic argument isn't to stop immigration or quotas from different peoples, rather limit it generally to sensible levels, which is what I support.