Dividend Options: Fill & Download for Free

Sometimes you find the best way to explain things in the damnedest places. This from a novel by one of my favorite authors:“Lucas Davenport was not a liberal. He believed that no matter how much money or time you spend on the poor, there’d always be people at the bottom unable to care for themselves, and that was simply a fact to be lived with.“Your mistake,” he’d told Weather, after one beer too many, and to his regret, “is that you characterize everything as a problem. A problem is something that can be solved. Some things aren’t problems---there situations. A situation can’t be solved, it just is. Medicare is a bottomless hole. We could spend every nickel everyone makes in the country on medical care, and it still wouldn’t be enough. If a guy thinks he’s dying and somebody else is paying for all of his care, why shouldn’t he ask for the very best for the very longest time possible, right into the grave? And they do. We can’t afford that, sweetheart.””(MASKED PREY, by John Sanford)REPLY TO THE QUESETION: No, it is bad because socialism is an economic system that is based on the ideology of collectivism. This means that the individuals have no responsibility for the cost of their care and comfort. With no responsibility for caring for themselves, whether it is health, employment, housing, food, clothing or recreation, there is no restrictions or measures or limits on what they get from the government. They get whatever the bureaucracy determines they “deserve” and the bureaucracy determines exactly what that is that you deserve based on some means and methods of judging you, your importance, your value and your behavior. That is the way it is done in a totalitarian country.In a democratic republic type of country it is different, but not really much better.The government in the UK or Canada uses experts, economists, doctors and bureaucrats armed with data, estimates, history and best guesses on how much should be budgeted for national health care. When that amount is determined it becomes a line item in their national budget and it is determined how much each citizen pays in taxes to cover that amount.They are then forced to ration the money out in a way that does not exceed the budgeted estimate. Since running out of money is not an option, then the rationing must get tighter and tighter to ensure there is enough to get through the year.In the US we have, or had, a private enterprise system of insurance that the citizen purchases based on his wealth and ability to pay the premium. The insurance companies take the risk of determining how much they must charge their customers to ensure the total amount of premiums they collect will exceed the total cost of services they provide plus a cushion for safety against errors in judgement plus the cost of running the whole shebang plus a premium or dividend for the investor/owners and risk takers of the company plus a profit to make it all worthwhile.The customer can generate many times more cost than the premiums he pays if he gets really sick or injured, or he may never come close to generating as much cost in health care as the premium he paid. That is why it is called insurance, just like your car, house, professional liability, flood, earthquake and forest fire insurance. It is a risk/reward thing and very American. But it tends to make one a bit more conscious of his health since he is paying for it out of his pocket.

Stock marketFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFinancial marketsPublic marketExchange · SecuritiesBond marketBond valuationCorporate bondFixed incomeGovernment bondHigh-yield debtMunicipal bondSecuritizationStock marketCommon stockPreferred stockRegistered shareStockStock certificateStock exchangeOther marketsDerivatives(Credit derivativeFutures exchangeHybrid security)Foreign exchange(CurrencyExchange rate)CommodityMoneyReal estateReinsuranceOver-the-counter (off-exchange)ForwardsOptionsSpot marketSwapsTradingParticipantsRegulationClearingRelated areasBanks and bankingFinance corporatepersonalpublicvteA stock market, equity market or share market is the aggregation of buyers and sellers (a loose network of economic transactions, not a physical facility or discrete entity) of stocks (also called shares), which represent ownership claims on businesses; these may include securities listed on a public stock exchange as well as those only traded privately. Examples of the latter include shares of private companies which are sold to investors through equity crowdfunding platforms. Stock exchanges list shares of common equity as well as other security types, e.g. corporate bonds and convertible bonds.Contents[hide]1Size of the market2Stock exchange3Trade4Market participant4.1Trends in market participation4.1.1Indirect vs. direct investment4.1.2Participation by income and wealth strata4.1.3Participation by head of household race and gender4.1.4Determinants and possible explanations of stock market participation5History5.1Early history5.2Birth of formal stock markets6Importance6.1Function and purpose6.2Relation to the modern financial system6.3United States S&P stock market returns6.4Behavior of the stock market6.5Irrational behavior6.6Crashes6.7Stock market prediction7Stock market index8Derivative instruments9Leveraged strategies9.1Short selling9.2Margin buying10New issuance11ASX Share Market Game12Investment strategies13Taxation14See also15References16Further reading17External linksSize of the market[edit]Stocks can be categorised in various ways. One way is by the country where the company is domiciled. For example, Nestlé and Novartis are domiciled in Switzerland, so they may be considered as part of the Swiss stock market, although their stock may also be traded on exchanges in other countries, for example, as American depository receipts (ADRs) on U.S. stock markets.At the close of 2012, the size of the world stock market (total market capitalisation) was about US$55 trillion.[1]By country, the largest market was the United States (about 34%), followed by Japan(about 6%) and the United Kingdom (about 6%).[2]These numbers increased in 2013.[3]As of 2015, there are a total of 60 stock exchanges in the world with a total market capitalization of $69 trillion. Of these, there are 16 exchanges with a market capitalization of $1 trillion or more, and they account for 87% of global market capitalization. Apart from the Australian Securities Exchange, these 16 exchanges are based in one of three continents: North America, Europe and Asia.[4]Stock exchange[edit]Main article: Stock exchangeCourtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (or Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser in Dutch), the world's first formal stock exchange. The first formal stock market in its modern sense – as one of the indispensable elements of modern capitalism[5]– was a pioneering innovation by the VOC managers and shareholders in the early 1600s.[6][7]A stock exchange is a place where, or an organization through which, individuals and organizations can trade stocks. Many large companies have their stock listed on a stock exchange. This makes the stock more liquid and thus more attractive to many investors. It may also act as a guarantor of settlement. Other stocks may be traded "over the counter" (OTC), that is, through a dealer. Some large companies will have their stock listed on more than one exchange in different countries, so as to attract international investors.[8]Stock exchanges may also cover other types of securities, such as fixed interest securities (bonds) or (less frequently) derivatives, which are more likely to be traded OTC.Trade[edit]The New York Stock ExchangeThe London Stock ExchangeTrade in stock markets means the transfer for money of a stock or security from a seller to a buyer. This requires these two parties to agree on a price. Equities (stocks or shares) confer an ownership interest in a particular company.Participants in the stock market range from small individual stock investors to larger trader investors, who can be based anywhere in the world, and may include banks, insurance companies, pension funds and hedge funds. Their buy or sell orders may be executed on their behalf by a stock exchange trader.Some exchanges are physical locations where transactions are carried out on a trading floor, by a method known as open outcry. This method is used in some stock exchanges and commodity exchanges, and involves traders shouting bid and offer prices. The other type of stock exchange has a network of computers where trades are made electronically. An example of such an exchange is the NASDAQ.A potential buyer bids a specific price for a stock, and a potential seller asks a specific price for the same stock. Buying or selling at the market means you will accept any ask price or bid price for the stock. When the bid and ask prices match, a sale takes place, on a first-come, first-served basis if there are multiple bidders or askers at a given price.The purpose of a stock exchange is to facilitate the exchange of securities between buyers and sellers, thus providing a marketplace. The exchanges provide real-time trading information on the listed securities, facilitating price discovery.The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is a physical exchange, with a hybrid market for placing orders electronically from any location as well as on the trading floor. Orders executed on the trading floor enter by way of exchange members and flow down to a floor broker, who submits the order electronically to the floor trading post for the Designated Market Maker ("DMM") for that stock to trade the order. The DMM's job is to maintain a two-sided market, making orders to buy and sell the security when there are no other buyers or sellers. If a spread exists, no trade immediately takes place – in this case the DMM may use their own resources (money or stock) to close the difference. Once a trade has been made, the details are reported on the "tape" and sent back to the brokerage firm, which then notifies the investor who placed the order. Computers play an important role, especially for program trading.The NASDAQ is a virtual exchange, where all of the trading is done over a computer network. The process is similar to the New York Stock Exchange. One or more NASDAQ market makers will always provide a bid and ask price at which they will always purchase or sell 'their' stock.The Paris Bourse, now part of Euronext, is an order-driven, electronic stock exchange. It was automated in the late 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, it consisted of an open outcry exchange. Stockbrokersmet on the trading floor of the Palais Brongniart. In 1986, the CATS trading system was introduced, and the order matching process was fully automated.People trading stock will prefer to trade on the most popular exchange since this gives the largest number of potential counterparties (buyers for a seller, sellers for a buyer) and probably the best price. However, there have always been alternatives such as brokers trying to bring parties together to trade outside the exchange. Some third markets that were popular are Instinet, and later Island and Archipelago (the later two have since been acquired by Nasdaq and NYSE, respectively). One advantage is that this avoids the commissions of the exchange. However, it also has problems such as adverse selection.[9]Financial regulators are probing dark pools.[10][11]Market participant[edit]The offices of Bursa Malaysia, Malaysia's national stock exchange (known before demutualization as Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange)Market participants include individual retail investors, institutional investors such as mutual funds, banks, insurance companies and hedge funds, and also publicly traded corporations trading in their own shares. Some studies have suggested that institutional investors and corporations trading in their own shares generally receive higher risk-adjusted returns than retail investors.[12]A few decades ago, most buyers and sellers were individual investors, such as wealthy businessmen, usually with long family histories to particular corporations. Over time, markets have become more "institutionalized"; buyers and sellers are largely institutions (e.g., pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, index funds, exchange-traded funds, hedge funds, investor groups, banks and various other financial institutions).The rise of the institutional investor has brought with it some improvements in market operations. There has been a gradual tendency for "fixed" (and exorbitant) fees being reduced for all investors, partly from falling administration costs but also assisted by large institutions challenging brokers' oligopolistic approach to setting standardised fees.[citation needed]A current trend in stock market investments includes the decrease in fees due to computerized asset management termed Robo Advisers within the industry. Automation has decreased portfolio management costs by lowering the cost associated with investing as a whole.Trends in market participation[edit]Stock market participation refers to the number of agents who buy and sell equity backed securities either directly or indirectly in a financial exchange. Participants are generally subdivided into three distinct sectors; households, institutions, and foreign traders. Direct participation occurs when any of the above entities buys or sells securities on its own behalf on an exchange. Indirect participation occurs when an institutional investor exchanges a stock on behalf of an individual or household. Indirect investment occurs in the form of pooled investment accounts, retirement accounts, and other managed financial accounts.Indirect vs. direct investment[edit]The total value of equity-backed securities in the United States rose over 600% in the 25 years between 1989 and 2012 as market capitalization expanded from $2,790 billion to $18,668 billion.[13]Direct ownership of stock by individuals rose slightly from 17.8% in 1992 to 17.9% in 2007, with the median value of these holdings rising from $14,778 to $17,000.[14][15]Indirect participation in the form of retirement accounts rose from 39.3% in 1992 to 52.6% in 2007, with the median value of these accounts more than doubling from $22,000 to $45,000 in that time.[14][15]Rydqvist, Spizman, and Strebulaev attribute the differential growth in direct and indirect holdings to differences in the way each are taxed in the United States. Investments in pension funds and 401ks, the two most common vehicles of indirect participation, are taxed only when funds are withdrawn from the accounts. Conversely, the money used to directly purchase stock is subject to taxation as are any dividends or capital gains they generate for the holder. In this way the current tax code incentivizes individuals to invest indirectly.[16]Participation by income and wealth strata[edit]Rates of participation and the value of holdings differs significantly across strata of income. In the bottom quintile of income, 5.5% of households directly own stock and 10.7% hold stocks indirectly in the form of retirement accounts.[15]The top decile of income has a direct participation rate of 47.5% and an indirect participation rate in the form of retirement accounts of 89.6%.[15]The median value of directly owned stock in the bottom quintile of income is $4,000 and is $78,600 in the top decile of income as of 2007.[17]The median value of indirectly held stock in the form of retirement accounts for the same two groups in the same year is $6,300 and $214,800 respectively.[17]Since the Great Recession of 2008 households in the bottom half of the income distribution have lessened their participation rate both directly and indirectly from 53.2% in 2007 to 48.8% in 2013, while over the same time period households in the top decile of the income distribution slightly increased participation 91.7% to 92.1%.[18]The mean value of direct and indirect holdings at the bottom half of the income distribution moved slightly downward from $53,800 in 2007 to $53,600 in 2013.[18]In the top decile, mean value of all holdings fell from $982,000 to $969,300 in the same time.[18]The mean value of all stock holdings across the entire income distribution is valued at $269,900 as of 2013.[18]Participation by head of household race and gender[edit]The racial composition of stock market ownership shows households headed by whites are nearly four and six times as likely to directly own stocks than households headed by blacks and Hispanics respectively. As of 2011 the national rate of direct participation was 19.6%, for white households the participation rate was 24.5%, for black households it was 6.4% and for Hispanic households it was 4.3% Indirect participation in the form of 401k ownership shows a similar pattern with a national participation rate of 42.1%, a rate of 46.4% for white households, 31.7% for black households, and 25.8% for Hispanic households. Households headed by married couples participated at rates above the national averages with 25.6% participating directly and 53.4% participating indirectly through a retirement account. 14.7% of households headed by men participated in the market directly and 33.4% owned stock through a retirement account. 12.6% of female headed households directly owned stock and 28.7% owned stock indirectly.[15]Determinants and possible explanations of stock market participation[edit]In a 2002 paper Anntte Vissing-Jorgensen from the University of Chicago attempts to explain disproportionate rates of participation along wealth and income groups as a function of fixed costs associated with investing. Her research concludes that a fixed cost of $200 per year is sufficient to explain why nearly half of all U.S. households do not participate in the market.[19]Participation rates have been shown to strongly correlate with education levels, promoting the hypothesis that information and transaction costs of market participation are better absorbed by more educated households. Behavioral economists Harrison Hong, Jeffrey Kubik and Jeremy Stein suggest that sociability and participation rates of communities have a statistically significant impact on an individual’s decision to participate in the market. Their research indicates that social individuals living in states with higher than average participation rates are 5% more likely to participate than individuals that do not share those characteristics.[20]This phenomenon also explained in cost terms. Knowledge of market functioning diffuses through communities and consequently lowers transaction costs associated with investing.History[edit]Early history[edit]In 12th-century France, the courretiers de change were concerned with managing and regulating the debts of agricultural communities on behalf of the banks. Because these men also traded with debts, they could be called the first brokers. A common misbelief[citation needed]is that, in late 13th-century Bruges, commodity traders gathered inside the house of a man called Van der Beurze, and in 1409 they became the "Brugse Beurse", institutionalizing what had been, until then, an informal meeting, but actually, the family Van der Beurze had a building in Antwerp where those gatherings occurred;[21]the Van der Beurze had Antwerp, as most of the merchants of that period, as their primary place for trading. The idea quickly spread around Flanders and neighboring countries and "Beurzen" soon opened in Ghent and Rotterdam.In the middle of the 13th century, Venetian bankers began to trade in government securities. In 1351 the Venetian government outlawed spreading rumors intended to lower the price of government funds. Bankers in Pisa, Verona, Genoa and Florence also began trading in government securities during the 14th century. This was only possible because these were independent city-states not ruled by a duke but a council of influential citizens. Italian companies were also the first to issue shares. Companies in England and the Low Countries followed in the 16th century.Birth of formal stock markets[edit]See also: Economic history of the Dutch Republic, Financial history of the Dutch Republic, and Dutch East India CompanyOne of the oldest known stock certificates, issued by the VOC chamber of Enkhuizen, dated 9 Sep 1606.[22][23][24][25]A 17th-century engraving depicting the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (Amsterdam's old bourse, a.k.a. Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser in Dutch), built by Hendrick de Keyser (c. 1612). The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was the world's first official (formal) stock exchangewhen it began trading the VOC's freely transferable securities, including bonds and shares of stock[26].Courtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser) by Emanuel de Witte, 1653. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange is said to have been the first stock exchange to introduce continuous trade in the early 17th century. The process of buying and selling the VOC's shares, on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, became the basis of the world's first official (formal) stock market.[27][28][29]Established in 1875, the Bombay Stock Exchange is Asia's first stock exchange.In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Dutch pioneering several financial innovations that helped lay the foundations of modern financial system.[30][31][32][33]While the Italian city-states produced the first transferable government bonds, they did not develop the other ingredient necessary to produce a fully fledged capital market: corporate shareholders. In the early 1600s the Dutch East India Company (VOC) became the first company in history to issue bonds and shares of stockto the general public.[34]As Edward Stringham (2015) notes, "companies with transferable shares date back to classical Rome, but these were usually not enduring endeavors and no considerable secondary market existed (Neal, 1997, p. 61)."[35]The Dutch East India Company (founded in the year of 1602) was also the first joint-stock company to get a fixed capital stock and as a result, continuous trade in company stock occurred on the Amsterdam Exchange. Soon thereafter, a lively trade in various derivatives, among which options and repos, emerged on the Amsterdam market. Dutch traders also pioneered short selling – a practice which was banned by the Dutch authorities as early as 1610.[36]There are now stock markets in virtually every developed and most developing economies, with the world's largest markets being in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, India, China, Canada, Germany (Frankfurt Stock Exchange), France, South Korea and the Netherlands.[37]Importance[edit]As the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises noted, "A stock market is crucial to the existence of capitalism and private property. For it means that there is a functioning market in the exchange of private titles to the means of production. There can be no genuine private ownership of capital without a stock market: there can be no true socialism if such a market is allowed to exist."[38]Function and purpose[edit]The stock market is one of the most important ways for companies to raise money, along with debt markets which are generally more imposing but do not trade publicly.[39]This allows businesses to be publicly traded, and raise additional financial capital for expansion by selling shares of ownership of the company in a public market. The liquidity that an exchange affords the investors enables their holders to quickly and easily sell securities. This is an attractive feature of investing in stocks, compared to other less liquid investments such as property and other immoveable assets. Some companies actively increase liquidity by trading in their own shares.[40][41]History has shown that the price of stocks and other assets is an important part of the dynamics of economic activity, and can influence or be an indicator of social mood. An economy where the stock market is on the rise is considered to be an up-and-coming economy. The stock market is often considered the primary indicator of a country's economic strength and development.[42]Rising share prices, for instance, tend to be associated with increased business investment and vice versa. Share prices also affect the wealth of households and their consumption. Therefore, central banks tend to keep an eye on the control and behavior of the stock market and, in general, on the smooth operation of financial system functions. Financial stability is the raison d'être of central banks.[43]Exchanges also act as the clearinghouse for each transaction, meaning that they collect and deliver the shares, and guarantee payment to the seller of a security. This eliminates the risk to an individual buyer or seller that the counterparty could default on the transaction.[44]

Northern Ireland is an artificially created statelet designed to appease a Unionist minority who had threatened to go to war against the forces of the Crown in order to maintain a union with said Crown.Partitioning it from the rest of the Island cut it off from its natural hinterlandIn 1921, a backwater failed sectarian statelet was formed in order to secure a few grubby votes for the Conservative Party.Edward Carson was cognisant he was only being usedCarson in the British House of Lords on December 14th, 1921 -"What a fool I was. I was only a puppet and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power."In Carson's head, Ireland was part of the Empire, not a colony but the maker of the empire. Irish men were sent to India, Australia, America, and made the Empire. The big lads at the very top of the English establishment wanted to make the world England but on the ground that didn't happen as we know todayNorthern Ireland contributed to Uk coffers for the first 20 years of its existence up until the ’40s.Its one of the reasons the Uk held on to the six counties, That part of Ireland the Northeastern part of the island was by far the wealthiest and most innovative and industrious part of the Island.80% of the economic output of the island was concentrated around Belfast.The Southern economy we can describe as a Beer and Biscuits economy, the only industry we had was the off products of Agriculture, biscuits from Jacobs and beer from Guinnesses.Had you placed a bet 100 years ago on the day of partition the bet would have been the small Northern economy would have been a microcosm of modernity and the Southern economy would languish as an agricultural economy that bleeds its people because of a lack of Capital. That was the story from the famine onwards up until the 1970s.The Interesting thing is the southern economy turned around for a multitude of reasons.The North. now is an economic backwater compared to the South on every single metric, not just on income, not just on innovation, not just on startups the reason being is Partition. Partition robbed the North of its natural hinterland and created a dependency culture which is very evident in the way Northern Ireland runs its economy. Northern Ireland could pay for itself in the British exchequer up until the 1940s. It had a surplus. this is very interesting there was a surplus of cash going from Northern Ireland to London. It was a peer with the rest of the united kingdom up until post WW2 like the rest of the British economy it started to decline.Absent London the British Economy is very backward, you can gauge that in a variety of ways in terms of the trade; what it makes what it doesn't make etc…Northern Ireland suffered profoundly by not having its own autonomy. That's the key what actually happens if you have a bond market. You have to go out and raise money on your own with your own flag with your own risk premium as a country. You mature very quickly because you have to get your house in order: you have skin in the game.Precisely so if you don't have that if you're a dependent you're like a concubine economy dependent on the UK. The broader UK economy coddled Northern Ireland that it became dependent. When you are coddled you don't need to actually get up in the morning and say what are we going to do today right so consequently politics and economics in the north have been diminished to simply a game of who can extract more money out of the exchequer right now. what that does is over two or three generations in the first generation or two that's fine because it's an easy life but what actually happens is the rest of the world is moving on nobody's waiting for Northern Ireland to wake up.The Republic of Ireland: because we had our backs against the wall, because we had no capital (when the Brits left they took all their capital with them) nobody would lend money to us. We had to think okay what are we gonna do how do we leapfrog this backwardness into the future.what we did was Join what could become the European Union. We committedly joined the European Union. Another main difference was the presence of American multinationals. Our openness to the united states which was part of an economic strategy and also part of a legacy of the diaspora.Basically, the economic failures of the past that made our people flee to the four corners of the globe, gave us the connections that we capitalised on Ireland has tremendous soft power. On a per-head basis, Ireland has a good claim to be the world’s most diplomatically powerful country.Ireland has some natural advantages. A history of emigration blessed it with a huge diaspora in America, which unlike say the German diaspora, is vocal about its heritage. That ensures an audience in the White House and sway on Capitol Hill. It is a small, English-speaking country with diplomats able to focus on a few clear aims. A policy of neutrality helps it avoid unpopular military entanglement. Unlike most rich European countries, it carries no imperial baggage. Indeed, Ireland’s history as a victim of colonialism still provides a useful icebreaker with countries once coloured pink on Victorian maps. Nor is Ireland shy about using its cultural clout.When Ireland economically opened up the Americans were ready with their capital, not on the basis of legacy or heritage but on the basis of a good economic decision.The British don't understand is that Ireland has been playing this game for a long time which is and all small countries have to figure this out how do you play off the big countries. How do you be part of the European Union be attractive to Americans and be cognizant of the fact that Britain is a significant trade partner. But I'll give you a statistic that shows diversion of the trade when Winston Churchill was the prime minister of the UK Britain for the second time in the late 1940s I think early 1950s he got a second kept by 51. he got a second bite of the cherry.Irish trade with Britain. where 92 per cent of our exports went to the UK today it's 11%, so just think about the change in the economy the Irish economy was hyper dependent on Britain, nine out of ten Irish exports went to Britain now one out of ten Irish exports go to Britain so our economy has changed dramatically so in a way and this goes back to northern Ireland Britain has remained static it hasn't dealt with the world as an economic entity.if you take London out of the equation, the financial markets rock and roll advertising maybe the premier league is another big British brand right if you take those out what you're talking about is a country that has gone backwards economically and unfortunately, northern Ireland as an umbilical link to Britain has been dragged backwards.Economically, the Union has enfeebled the North while independence has enriched the Republic – particularly since the peace process. Commercially, there was a huge peace dividend, but it went south.When you come down from Belfast you know the roads are better the cars are better the standard of living is better what we've seen in our lifetime is a shift in terms of lifestyle and living standards.My sense is that the opportunity for Northern Ireland in the context of a united island economy are enormous if you think about the income per head for example at the moment the income per head in Northern Ireland is about 24 000 euros per year and in the republic, it's 40 000 euros a year.And that's not on GDP that's something called GNI which strips out all these distortions and caveats.it's not just income it's about disposable incomes are there supports perhaps in the North I'm thinking of the NHS, for example, the education system, not at the university level but up until that is where he perhaps people in the north are better off I think if you regard the health service as the barometer I think if you regard free access to health for everybody as the barometer then it's better to live in Northern Ireland if you're sick and old okay and poor okay so take those things if you're sick and poor right but the vast majority of society is not sick and old and actual fact and poorThe NHS suffers quite dramatically I think there's a lot of propaganda about the NHS if you look at people clapping for the NHS and the idea that the NHS is by far the best health service in the world there's very little evidence of that.If you are an 83-year-old waiting for a steroid injection because you have arthritis in the North you will be waiting months for the procedure. That doesn't happen in the republic.The idea health of insurance is totally normal there's a myth abroad that paying health insurance is abnormal in fact it's the way the vast majority of European health systems work the NHS is an outlier in the NHS you all wait togetherif you look at for example unemployment .benefit in the North vis-a-vis the south the dole in the South is 203 euros a week In the north, it's about 58 poundsTo be poor in the north is a disaster in comparison to the south, The southern welfare state is much more generous and has been for a long time.There is this perception that we are a nasty red tooth and claw capitalist country that doesn't look after its people. Just try being unemployed in either jurisdictionThe welfare state of a country has to reflect the income of the country and if you can generate decent incomes and generate recent wealth, we know what's going on this is not a Panglossian world but what you do understand is that on most metrics living in the Republic of Ireland provides you with better opportunity.Ireland is the 3rd most developed country in the world, the UK is back at 15th place.At partition, the north was twice as rich as the south it's now the twice as poorThe North had dynamic outward-looking companies that traded all over the world it now has very few okay the south has managed to bring capital in and that capital has fused and driven together an economy that is I would say one of the more interesting economic test cases that we've seen many years.the education system in the north is very unusual because the north has the most spectacular results and the most spectacular failures in the UK, if you're good in the north you do extremely well but if you're bad in the north if you're actually falling behind you fall behind profoundly so it's actually an extreme outcome for an education system.let's think about the opportunity to imagine that the North now was a bit like the south in about 1992 93 in terms of the economy so the question is what is the best road map for Northern Ireland it strikes me is becoming much more akin to ourselves much more like ourselves and if that involves reunification politically are even just movements towards a united island economically I think the north has everything to gain and almost zero to lose.If the dynamic of British politics is profoundly derailed by Scottish nationalism then the union of England Wales and Northern Ireland looks very unusual l like an anomaly.The rest of the Uk is very much Indifferent to Unionists. whose outdated beliefs, have left them relics of the past in their now secular, progressive country. Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the Uk in Issues such as Gay marriage, abortion rights.Ethnically, without Scotland, the union of Northern Ireland and a multicultural but nationalistic little England is not particularly coherent. The English are very ambivalent and very ignorant about Northern Ireland. Indifference best sums up how they feel about the Province. It’s very distance in their minds.“The power in any relationship lies in the hands of the person who likes the other less”…..this sums up the dynamic in the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland. the love, for the most part, is one way and unrequited. I’ll give you one statistic in terms of demographics there are now more immigrants on the island of Ireland than there are Unionists. In a United Ireland Unionists will make up only 12 to 14% of the population. yes, there are more foreign-born people on this Island.There are more foreign-born people on this island than there are people who profess to be unionists now.In the Republic one in every six people in foreign-born, In the North it's one in every hundredthConsider that right and consider in the next 10 or 15 years that this island economy will become an island economy of close to seven and a half eigh million people it becomes substantial and in terms of innovation and wealth and economics that island economy if you look at even the British context in terms of wealth, will be the second richest region in what would have been Britain after the inner m25 region okay miles ahead of the northern powerhouse of Manchester Leeds and Birmingham.The current economy of the Republic is larger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Combined.These are the facts on the ground they demand us to reconsider how this country operates and therefore you look at the demographics you look at the economics you look at the wealth disparityThe big myth in the North is the South can't afford the North remember that was the big thing you still hear that today you hear it but it's not true because the southern economy is an economy about 300 billion euros the northern economy is 50 billion that's the disparity between both jurisdictionsNorthern Ireland could easily be absorbed into the Republics economy, one of the main benefits of the GFA was the creation of an all Island Integrated economy.The point is let's say the subvention is 11 billion that's about four percent of Irish GDP at the moment right less we're spending 30 billion on it's no big deal it's not a lot when you think about it.Since the Good Friday Agreement, American corporations alone have invested close to $400 bn (£312bn) in the Republic. This is equivalent to 56 years of the British Government’s annual subvention to keep Northern Ireland afloat!There could be internal economic dynamics that could certainly if you take for example northern Irish wages are lower than the south, okay but so wages would have to go up to the same level not there would be some sort of other would be some sort of fusion in the middle. take about rentsI mean the amazing things the cost of housing the north is so much more affordable than the south.if you have a unified economy with a good broadband system and a decent rail and road network Ireland becomes very small it's very feasible to live inBuild a proper enterprise train along french lines if we need French TGV the french TVG would cut the train time from Belfast to Dublin will be 28 minutes at the highest speed we're not living n you know Canada. we're living in a tiny little island all together off the coast of Britain which is off the coast of Europemy sense is that over the next five-ten years the economic inconsistency of Brexit Britain feels that it can get trade deals with countries that don't want to do trade deals with it and it can turn itself you know into little Singapore if there is a Singapore of Europe it's Ireland and not Britain.Obviously, there are significant differences in terms of prices, access to public services and housing between the two parts of the island, but the fact remains that the Union has been an economic calamity for everyone in the North. The contrast is made more significant by the fact that economically the North was, at one stage, so far ahead of the South. So where does that leave us?Well, in the distant past, there was good reason to believe that the Union preserved living standards in the North, but this is a myth and has not been the case since 1990. Indeed, the end of the Troubles, which should have marked the resurgence of the relative performance of the North, has actually delivered the opposite.Relative to the South, the Northern economy has fallen backwards since the guns were silenced. If there was an economic peace dividend, it went South.Now with Brexit looming and the concrete and more profound underlying changes in demography, the issue of a united Ireland may be back on the table quicker than most of us imagined – or cared to dread.Interestingly, Unionists have now an economic incentive to join a united Ireland because the Union is impoverishing them, but I suspect they’d prefer to get poor in the semi-detached UK rather than join a much more coherent all-Ireland economic endeavour.Northern Ireland has no history of being a country of its own, Independence doesn't make political or economic sense. It is not a viable option.