3 ms·

Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? Th

Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? The vast majority of London commuters live in Greater London, so its housing is largely provided for by itself. Even if you assumed every human being in the "commuter belt" travelled to London daily, the GLA would still account for ~73% of the population, and this is plainly an absurd assumption. While London may not contribute as much manufacturing, it still manages ~6% of the UK's manufacturing output. At the same time, just retail in London produces almost as much for the economy as rUK manufacturing. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset that the poorer parts of the nation can trade with London to provide it goods and services. Should you not be upset at the farming, storage and transportation rUK "harvests" from abroad? This dwarfs London's "harvesting" of rUK. London itself has nothing to do with profits from this trade being unequally distributed. Westminster, sure, but London? No.

Silhouette 9y ago
Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. Not everything is about GDP. You belittle farming, but without food to eat, Londoners would not be generating a lot of economic output at all. The original point here was that London generates disproportionate tax revenues, but only because it is home to more scalable service industries and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London, even if we take that to mean Greater London. London also has no major sources for fuels. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset Why would I be upset about anything? I only commented that London is able to generate disproportionate tax returns because it's service-based and relies on the rest of the UK for support. That's not a "thesis", it's a simple economic fact, and everything I've mentioned in support it of is readily verifiable for the price of a Google search.
- _benedict 9y ago
  and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere As does rUK, with rWorld. As do most UK cities with rUK. Similarly with farming; London _and rUK_ can (and do) fulfil a significant quantity of their demand from abroad; it is possible to fulfil more. I do not belittle farming, but trading for food does not equal "extracting rents" as the OP you were responding to requested, and nor does farming constitute a huge industry rUK is somehow being defrauded of the profits for. Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London Energy production is not a natural resource. The only "rUK" resource we input is Gas, but it's not clear how much of rUK can claim to be losing out here. Most of rUK would not be the natural "owners" of this resource, and - again - it is traded on the open market, so can be fulfilled from elsewhere. Why would I be upset To rephrase/reconsider: you seem to somehow confuse trade with rent extraction, unless you simply did not read the OP's point of contention you were contributing to. If this were to be true, rUK would be one of the world's worst perpetuators of this form of wrong, given its greater dependency on rWorld in exactly the manners you describe.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    We just seem to be quibbling over how we interpreted the points other posters were trying to make about prioritisation for London and rents now, which I don't think is going to get us anywhere, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.
    - genofon 9y ago
      no, what eh was saying (correctly) is that even if it's true that London need to import the things you listed from other countries it would not make a big difference in his prosperity. For example it's laughable that you mentioned farming, as UK heavily relay on imports already and the sector constitutes only 0.5% of the GDP. So basically London would be better off without the rest of the UK
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Silhouette 9y ago

Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. Not everything is about GDP. You belittle farming, but without food to eat, Londoners would not be generating a lot of economic output at all. The original point here was that London generates disproportionate tax revenues, but only because it is home to more scalable service industries and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London, even if we take that to mean Greater London. London also has no major sources for fuels. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset Why would I be upset about anything? I only commented that London is able to generate disproportionate tax returns because it's service-based and relies on the rest of the UK for support. That's not a "thesis", it's a simple economic fact, and everything I've mentioned in support it of is readily verifiable for the price of a Google search.

_benedict 9y ago
and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere As does rUK, with rWorld. As do most UK cities with rUK. Similarly with farming; London _and rUK_ can (and do) fulfil a significant quantity of their demand from abroad; it is possible to fulfil more. I do not belittle farming, but trading for food does not equal "extracting rents" as the OP you were responding to requested, and nor does farming constitute a huge industry rUK is somehow being defrauded of the profits for. Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London Energy production is not a natural resource. The only "rUK" resource we input is Gas, but it's not clear how much of rUK can claim to be losing out here. Most of rUK would not be the natural "owners" of this resource, and - again - it is traded on the open market, so can be fulfilled from elsewhere. Why would I be upset To rephrase/reconsider: you seem to somehow confuse trade with rent extraction, unless you simply did not read the OP's point of contention you were contributing to. If this were to be true, rUK would be one of the world's worst perpetuators of this form of wrong, given its greater dependency on rWorld in exactly the manners you describe.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  We just seem to be quibbling over how we interpreted the points other posters were trying to make about prioritisation for London and rents now, which I don't think is going to get us anywhere, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.
  - genofon 9y ago
    no, what eh was saying (correctly) is that even if it's true that London need to import the things you listed from other countries it would not make a big difference in his prosperity. For example it's laughable that you mentioned farming, as UK heavily relay on imports already and the sector constitutes only 0.5% of the GDP. So basically London would be better off without the rest of the UK
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]