Freeports

RoaryTheLion said:
What are you talking about? I don’t think freeports are a good idea at all. I was suggesting there will be available data that gives evidence as to whether freeports reduce wealth inequality or not.
Try not to let your emotions run roughshod over your actions. It’s ugly.
Click to expand...
There's only one emotional one here.
 
Nero said:
Any comparison with Germany and German cities cannot be made fairly. Germany is a federal state so made up of several semi-independent areas. It therefore makes sense that they have several large economic cities. The closest thing Britain and specifically England has is regional Mayor's but even then their options are limited.

As for Freeport's. The current legislation actually states that power that resides with a Local Authority can effectively be given to the Freeport if the Secretary of State sees fit to do so. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Berlin wasn't part of West Germany's post-war Wirtschaftswunder and didn't share in the post-war prosperity. Unlike London it regressed relative to the other major West German cities.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Use your brain lad. If Freeports were reducing inequality do you think the Tories would introduce them?

Or have you found the data which suggests they do?
Click to expand...
You’re mistaking me for a Tory sympathiser and nothing could be further from the truth. I’m just of the mindset that arguments are stronger when backed up by empirical data rather than unbridled emotion. You clearly do use your brain but perhaps try to switch to the prefrontal cortex rather than the hypothalamus.
 
RoaryTheLion said:
You’re mistaking me for a Tory sympathiser and nothing could be further from the truth. I’m just of the mindset that arguments are stronger when backed up by empirical data rather than unbridled emotion. You clearly do use your brain but perhaps try to switch to the prefrontal cortex rather than the hypothalamus.
Click to expand...
Show me the data then. That's all I asked, and less of the 'woe is me' bull
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Show me the data then. That's all I asked, and less of the 'woe is me' bull
Click to expand...
This is hard work. I meant your (our) argument would be stronger if you had data to back it up. I don’t have data either way because I’m not passionate about this subject. I just don’t know enough about it to argue so vocally. Let me just reiterate that I’m not a fan of freeports or the Conservative party.
You mistakenly thought that my question to someone else was a backhanded endorsement. It wasn’t. I was hoping to generate some intelligent discussion such as Jack, Nero and Nano provided. I come to threads like this to interact with people who are more clued up. I act respectfully towards them. I really think we should let this go now as it isn’t doing either of us any favours.
 
JackG said:
China's Special Economic Zones and Open Coastal Cities share many of the features of freeports. By any measure, they've been fairly successful in generating prosperity albeit with greater inequality
Click to expand...
Found this: China’s Special Economic Zones at 30.
It’s a research paper looking at the impact.

And this: China’s special economic zones: an analysis of policy to reduce regional disparities

Abstract
There is no doubt that major regional disparities exist within China. The gap between its eastern coastal regions compared with the central and western regions has only grown wider over time. China’s special economic zones (SEZs) are defined as small geographical areas that allow the integration of free-market principles to attract additional foreign investment. However, the creation and success of SEZs has led to prosperity in the coastal regions of China, creating additional economic disparity between regions. This paper posits that one solution to reduce regional disparities is to extend the influence of the SEZs, or even set up new ones in different areas of the country, to spur investment and close the economic gaps.

The economic zones did see increased prosperity but those were the places that were most affluent anyway, hence the increase is disparity.
 
RoaryTheLion said:
Found this: China’s Special Economic Zones at 30.
It’s a research paper looking at the impact.

And this: China’s special economic zones: an analysis of policy to reduce regional disparities

Abstract
There is no doubt that major regional disparities exist within China. The gap between its eastern coastal regions compared with the central and western regions has only grown wider over time. China’s special economic zones (SEZs) are defined as small geographical areas that allow the integration of free-market principles to attract additional foreign investment. However, the creation and success of SEZs has led to prosperity in the coastal regions of China, creating additional economic disparity between regions. This paper posits that one solution to reduce regional disparities is to extend the influence of the SEZs, or even set up new ones in different areas of the country, to spur investment and close the economic gaps.

The economic zones did see increased prosperity but those were the places that were most affluent anyway, hence the increase is disparity.
Click to expand...
The first SEZ, Shenzhen, saw population growth from about 60,000 (1980) to almost 13 million today (Shenzhen Metro Area). Bit of an infant Hercules! Rural/urban inequality has increased but so has internal migration from village to city. Over the 40 year period, China has lifted 800m people out of absolute poverty, according to the World Bank. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that 'freeport' style policies don't have to be a zero-sum.
 
JackG said:
The first SEZ, Shenzhen, saw population growth from about 60,000 (1980) to almost 13 million today (Shenzhen Metro Area). Bit of an infant Hercules! Rural/urban inequality has increased but so has internal migration from village to city. Over the 40 year period, China has lifted 800m people out of absolute poverty, according to the World Bank. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that 'freeport' style policies don't have to be a zero-sum.
Click to expand...
In the last three decades China has done the flight from the countryside to the cities that Britain did 200 years ago, that's all, albeit on a bigger scale.
 
RoaryTheLion said:
This is hard work. I meant your (our) argument would be stronger if you had data to back it up. I don’t have data either way because I’m not passionate about this subject. I just don’t know enough about it to argue so vocally. Let me just reiterate that I’m not a fan of freeports or the Conservative party.
You mistakenly thought that my question to someone else was a backhanded endorsement. It wasn’t. I was hoping to generate some intelligent discussion such as Jack, Nero and Nano provided. I come to threads like this to interact with people who are more clued up. I act respectfully towards them. I really think we should let this go now as it isn’t doing either of us any favours.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting study. Man makes multiple post on a single subject and claims he's not interested in thay subject.

He also insults someone and tells rhem to respect the data. Data which doesn't exist.

Isn't the Internet a marvel?
 
If some posters don't think we have a big regional inequality problem in the UK, its pointless having threads about trying to address it.

I am astounded that those posters particularly on a board like this connected with the North East don't think there is a major problem, but it would explain a lot.

Freeports were partly a tool to address regional inequalities (i.e. economic differences between regions), if people think they are just a tax dodge and don't help poorer regions, what do they exactly propose to do to address regional inequalities?

I believe the UK has deep regional inequalities as said I assumed this was accepted on the board hence my earlier question, is it accepted by the board.

My belief is that deep regional inequalities in the UK damage the whole economy and make the UK cake smaller and create harmful anger and waste. Does anyone think this is incorrect? I am genuinely interested to know, it is a discussion board.
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
This is an interesting study. Man makes multiple post on a single subject and claims he's not interested in thay subject.

He also insults someone and tells rhem to respect the data. Data which doesn't exist.

Isn't the Internet a marvel?
Click to expand...
All I did was defend myself. Not being interested and not knowing enough about a topic to be able to post confidently about it are two different things. Then I’ve posted some interesting looking research on Chinese Special Economic Zones which I found because other posters added information that educated me. I asked a simple question to a poster about regional inequality in other countries. Why you feel the need to pile on with your signature brand of passive aggressiveness is anyone’s guess.

Let me clarify yet again. I do think there is regional inequality, I don’t think a freeport is a good idea for the NE and I’ve never voted Tory.
 
Last edited:
Redwurzel said:
If some posters don't think we have a big regional inequality problem in the UK, its pointless having threads about trying to address it.

I am astounded that those posters particularly on a board like this connected with the North East don't think there is a major problem, but it would explain a lot.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised at this too. I’ve looked at the thread and can’t see a single person saying we don’t have regional inequality? Can you point me to them?

I can see people saying Freeport’s are essentially tax dodges for big business. Diminishing workers rights and services. The two are unconnected
 
SmallTown said:
I’m surprised at this too. I’ve looked at the thread and can’t see a single person saying we don’t have regional inequality? Can you point me to them?

I can see people saying Freeport’s are essentially tax dodges for big business. Diminishing workers rights and services. The two are unconnected
Click to expand...
They are. I suspect Redwurzel is building an argument to address that inequality by creating economic benefits of improving the business environment in the North East. Everybody wants that but not with Freeports or Charter Cities.
 
Zoophonic said:
They are. I suspect Redwurzel is building an argument to address that inequality by creating economic benefits of improving the business environment in the North East. Everybody wants that but not with Freeports or Charter Cities.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think that’s what he’s going for. Sadly he’s fallen at the first hurdle by saying people don’t believe there is economic inequality in this country. When, as far as I can see, not one person has stated that. I just don’t see how reducing the rights of the working people and reducing the amount of tax the country receives will help this situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top