This 100-Chart Can Be Used To Help Explain Prime And: Fill & Download for Free

Prepare yourself for a great shock:Capitalists are good for poor people. Politicians are bad for poor people.Compare GDP per capita for 100 countries over the last century. Then, focus on the poor. Note the GDP per capita for the lowest decile of each society — both then and now.The data are shocking and clear.Countries with big governments, generous welfare benefits, and strict regulations stagnate compared to countries with weak governments, cheap welfare benefits, and few regulations.How can this be? It seems impossible!The data are clear and unequivocal. Statistics do not lie. Over the last 100 years (1920–2020), the poor are better off in countries where they received the least help from politicians.If you analyze 30-year rolling periods, the results are almost identical.There is obviously a great mystery here:How can social programs be beneficial in the short run, but terrible in the long run?Hong Kong invests in infrastructure. France invests in poor people.Guess who will win in the long run.50 years ago, virtually everyone in France was more prosperous than those in Hong Hong. But Hong Kong had a secret weapon: laissez-faire capitalism.25 years ago, the comparison was 50%-50%.Today most citizens of Hong Kong are better off than most French.Within two generations, every decile in Hong Kong (including the poorest 10%) will be better off than every decile in France.The trend is obvious. The French are in trouble. Their political system will not allow them to switch payments away from the poor toward investment projects. Thus, their national competitiveness sinks with each passing year —as do their future prospects.Are French social programs benefiting the poor in 2020? Yes!Will French social programs benefit the poor over the next 100 years?In a pig’s eye.Hong Kong and France are just two examples. Throughout history, there have been hundreds of examples.Bigger government = slower growth and reduced prosperityThis is not about Liberal versus Conservative. It is not about Left versus Right. Instead, it is about incentives to produce.It is also about short run benefits versus long run costs.In the short run, Big Government can do wondrous things to help people, especially poor people.These social programs run the gamut from free health care to free food stamps. Everyone likes to help the poor. Social justice increases!But in the long run, the bill comes due. Someone must pay — through higher taxes, reduced wage growth, or piling up expenses on that nation’s MasterCard.The sugar high of government freebies inevitably wears off. The hangover is painful.But then it gets even worse…The interest on those “free” expenditures starts to compound. Long after the party has ended, interest continues to accumulate. Year after year. Decade after decade. The entire economy stagnates.In 2020, the United States is still paying for welfare checks handed out to poor people in 1965. Compound interest grows like cancer. Debt is a silent killer.In the short run … Big Government can succeed! Politicians are applauded for helping poor people.In the long run … failure.Big Government fails the very people it was trying to help.In 2120, the Bottom 10% in France will envy the Bottom 10% in Hong Kong.100 years from now, poor French people will say:Our government failed us completely. Why did our politicians not invest for the future? France could have been rich — just like Hong Kong.There are counterexamples. Somalia has no functioning government. That country is a shambles.Conversely, Norway has very generous government programs. That country is doing well.But disregard these outliers. Look at the long-term trend for the vast majority of countries.Strong government retards economic growth. This is true whether the government is Liberal or Conservative. Left or Right.In the long run, big government hurts rich people and poor people alike.Why do Liberals like big government?Emotion.Politicians say: I really care about poor people. I will increase welfare programs to provide for those in need. I feel your pain, and want to help you.Capitalists say: I do not care about poor people. I do not think about poor people. They can compete in the marketplace like everyone else.Who sounds better on the evening news?This irony was best discussed by Adam Smith in 1776. He argued the hard-nosed capitalist is better for poor people than the empathetic bureaucrat.Not because the capitalist cares. He does not care. Instead, the capitalist improves every segment of society (including the poor) by pursuing his own self-interest.In the United States, government has two primary functions:Provide for the common defenseEnforce private contractsThere is nothing in the U.S. Constitution suggesting free health care, free cell phones, free housing, and free food for 40 million people.Bottom LineIn the short run, any government can reduce poverty via redistribution.That is not magical. If you spend tens of billions of dollars on the poor, their daily lives get better.But this free money helps poor people at horrific cost to the overall economy.The bill for social programs falls mainly on the middle class. Everyone feels good about helping the poor. But few people understand the negative knock-on effects.Those negative effects are bigger than most people realize. Much bigger!Welfare programs cause each and every economy to stagnate. The only question is:How much harm is done?In nations around the world, there have been three common outcomes:Somewhat bad. Economy grows, but at a slower rate.Terribly bad. Economy enters long-term decline.Zimbabwe bad. Benefits for the poor spiral out of control.Venezuela, Greece, and Argentina are the latest examples on a long list of bankrupted nations. There are many other examples.Asking government bureaucrats to help the poor is like asking the:Post Office to run FedExDMV to run UberCongress to run AmazonIn the short run, redistribution is wonderful for the poor and disastrous for everyone else.But in the long run…Redistribution is a disaster for each and every citizen. Rich and poor alike.That is the end of my answer. Thanks for reading.Data below were requested by readers in Comments.1 of 4: American InequalityAmericans are much richer than their overseas counterparts in every quintile. This is true on both a real basis and a purchasing power parity basis.Poor people in the United States should be thankful for the largesse they receive from the government. Monthly freebies!Instead, poor Americans are among the most unhappy and dissatisfied people anywhere.What explains this disconnect?Data suggest this is due to expectations and comparison groups. Poor people in the United States compare themselves to middle class workers and millionaires. They do not compare themselves to their corresponding quintile in other nations.If a poor American compares himself to a teacher, plumber, or billionaire across town, then inequality is suddenly a major problem. But if that poor American compares himself to billions of people in other countries, then inequality is a major problem — in the opposite direction.On a global basis, poor Americans are extremely lucky!Billions of people in Asia, Africa, and South America would be delighted to receive the free money, benefits, and living standards enjoyed by poor Americans.More people in developing economies — hundreds of millions of workers — are now joining the global labor pool. It will become increasingly expensive for the United States to subsidize non-competitive workers.2 of 4: ArgentinaArgentina’s culture has always focused on poor people. The U.S. has never focused on poor people.In 1900, GDP per capita was the same in both countries. Today, the U.S. is far ahead of Argentina.Argentina does not have a financial problem. Argentina has a cultural problem. So does Venezuela. So does Greece.Just last week, Argentina raised interest rates to 30% in an attempt to quell inflation. Their redistributions of wealth (and nutty pandering to the poor) have been going on for 120 years.Similarly, when Greek civil servants were told they could no longer retire at age 50 there were riots in the streets. Like Argentina, Greece has a cultural problem.People do not throw Molotov Cocktails because they are poor. They become violent when their expectations have been violated. They feel cheated.Why do people feel cheated by their own government?The answer is simple. Politicians in every country promise freebies to gain votes. Unfortunately for both politicians and voters, the world does not run on votes. The world runs on...Money!Not promises. Not politics. Not populism. Not culture.In Venezuela, it now takes 1 million bolivars to buy a cup of coffee. Inflation is 150,000% per annum. Columbia and Ecuador are being overrun with economic refugees.Maduro has walloped his country with his Liberal “good intentions.” Now he is harming his neighbors. Another cultural problem.Any country which focuses on the poor is doomed to stagnation, civil war, or worse.How does a nation avoid these cultural problems? Officials should tell poor people The Truth:“There is no free lunch. You did not earn this money. Not a penny of it.Your countrymen are subsidizing you with their taxes.Our goal is to make you a productive member of society. Quickly!We will not allow you to take from others over a long period of time.You are now mooching off the hard work and long hours of other citizens.That is wrong for our country — both practically and morally.”Somehow, I doubt politicians will give this speech any time soon.3 of 4: Nordic ModelSwedes pay 70 percent of salary in taxes: studyLiberals love Nordic countries … like a fat kid loves cake.[Whoops! This is Quora. I meant vertically challenged. Plus, I often eat carrot cake for breakfast.]Happiness levels in the Scandinavian countries are terrific. Many of these statistics compare favorably to the United States.On the surface, Liberals seem to have found Shangri La. Nordic countries seem to deliver public goods just as efficiently as private goods.Leftists get very excited. Maybe they’ve finally overcome their long history of failure:FabianismCommunitarianismCommunismSocialismLiberalismMaybe the search for Utopia is over. Liberals hope their Pot O’ Gold lies over the Nordic rainbow!A recent U.S. President discussed this crackpot thinking, calling it a quest for Heaven on Earth.Not so fast, Karl Marx!Statistics show Nordic countries are quietly sinking.The chart above shows Sweden's decline from #4 to #13. Denmark declined from #5 to #10. Norway did slightly better due to North Sea oil.Meanwhile, Ireland reduced taxes and chopped benefits for the poor. The Irish economy zoomed upward![Side Note: Anyone who has spent nights in an Irish pub will be awestruck by this accomplishment.]If you are Prime Minister of a Nordic country, what are you thinking now?Ironically, many Liberals in the U.S. believe Scandinavia points to the future. But the actual data on Nordic Socialism tell a different story. Their economies are stagnant.Very happy people, very tepid growth.Nordic competitiveness in the world has been in decline for 50 years. New business formation is moribund compared to the U.S.One Swede wrote on Quora: Google, Apple, and Facebook could never be founded in Sweden.In the U.S., some people live in the lowlands of income, many in the midlands, and some in the mountains.In Sweden, everyone lives in the midlands.If you want equality, harmony, and social justice, move to Sweden.If you want opportunity, dynamism, and wealth, move to the United States.Check out the patent rate above above. These are per capita data!The graph for research and development looks similar.So do graphs for productivity and productivity growth.Sweden executes some tasks well. They take great care of the lowest 10% of society.Unfortunately, this comes at enormous cost to the other 90%. That is why they assess 70% taxes for middle-income workers.As you can see from the chart above, poor people in the United States are doing quite well. Living conditions for American poor compare favorably to most of the world.The U.S. ranks #4 out of 185 countries for poor people. The U.S. ranks #1 out of 185 countries for rich people.The notion that poor Americans have terrible lives is a red herring. No pun intended! Statistics and data over the last 50 years tell a very different story.As a European boss, it is difficult to fire a worker...Because of this, employers in “generous” European countries are very cautious about adding new employees. Unemployment rates in Europe are always worse than U.S rates. Sometimes these rates are much worse.America is different. You can be fired for wearing dirty socks, slurping your soup, or dancing with the boss’s daughter.[Side Note: As a teenager, I had a very demanding Boss. Even though we joked a lot, he fired me over a trivial matter. Then, his cousin put my belongings in a Hefty garbage bag and threw me out. This would never happen in Europe.In retrospect, I deserved it. My friends still razz me about the Hefty bag all these years later.]Paradoxically, lack of worker protection in America helps workers. If a Boss knows he can fire someone easily, then that Boss is much more willing to “take a chance” on an:unskilled workernew immigrantminority teenagernaive studentsketchy applicantGovernments do not actually protect the poor from capitalists.That is a myth.In their misguided attempt to protect workers, governments turn transitory unemployment into structural unemployment.All you dummies in Washington … listen up! This ain’t rocket science.Less government = More jobsFewer rights for workers = More jobsLess regulation = More jobsLower payroll taxes = More jobsMore jobs = Higher GDP per capitaHigher GDP per capita = More R&D per capitaMore R&D = Higher productivity growthHigher productivity growth = Higher payHigher pay = Happier citizensFewer welfare programs = Fewer slackers watching Oprah and eating CheetosOn many qualitative metrics, Sweden and the other Nordic countries are among the best nations in the world. Admirable!On the other hand, if you want to:1. Borrow money2. Find investors and venture capital3. Grow your business4. Create new jobs5. Compete and win!6. Become amazingly rich from your hard work7. Give to charities, church, and kids8. Use your personal wealth as you see fitForget about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.Each year, these nations are left further behind in the race for global competitiveness.4 of 4: Smart Liberals and Dumb LiberalsThis section is personal opinion.Dumb liberals believe the U.S. government is a War Machine.Smart liberals know the government is a Redistribution Machine.Dumb liberals focus on benefits for the poor. Smart liberals focus on competition. The government has a vital role in ensuring competition and prosecuting price-fixers. But the government is a referee — not a player. Fair competition has nothing to do with giving freebies to poor people.Dumb liberals believe market failures cause poverty. Smart liberals understand the market rarely fails. If someone is poor, it is almost never the market’s fault.Dumb liberals believe in Equality of Outcome. Smart liberals believe in Equality of Opportunity.Dumb liberals believe a $100,000 operation for a senior citizen is the same as $100,000 in tuition for a college student. Smart liberals understand resources are scarce. Tax money should be spent on investment — not consumption.Dumb liberals believe strict regulations improve society. Smart liberals understand regulations can kill progress. Full stop.Dumb liberals believe capitalists work for politicians. Smart liberals believe politicians work for capitalists. For 250 years, the main driver of progress has been commerce. Not laws and regulations. Not Washington bureaucrats.Dumb liberals believe national debt is unimportant. Smart liberals understand U.S. debt benefits the old at the expense of the young.Dumb liberals believe health care is a right and should be unlimited. Smart liberals know unlimited programs would quickly bankrupt any country. No nation on Earth offers unlimited health care. Zero.Dumb liberals want to cut the U.S. military. Smart liberals understand the U.S. military is The Key to worldwide trading and capital flows.Dumb liberals support the rights of workers. Smart liberals support the rights of small business.Dumb liberals want to tax capital and investment. Smart liberals want to attract capital and investment.ConclusionConsider this thought experiment…Imagine you are President or Prime Minister of your country. You have two options to make life better for your people:Expand government 20% and shrink the private economy 20%Shrink government 20% and expand the private economy 20%Both have advantages and disadvantages.You love your country and want to do the right thing. You seek a great future for your children and subsequent generations.Which option will you choose?

Thanks for A2A! I think I’m quite eligible to answer this question as I’ve seen Indore city transform from being one of the dirtiest, un-organized city to one of the cleanest and organized city in the last decade. You may find the answer lengthy as I’ve tried to cover all the aspects and the journey of Indore’s amazing transformation.As I said, Indore used to be quite dirty city. It was definitely never counted amongst the cleanest city in India. There used to be dumps of garbage in the middle of intersections, vacant plots, etc! Each vacant plot or unoccupied land would become a dumping ground of domestic garbage with zero monitoring by the Municipal Corporation. There used to be a havoc of stray animals across the city. Amongst the stray animals- stray Pigs were a huge concern as the pigs used to live around any garbage dump at any vacant plot or open drains. And pigs multiply at an alarming speed (a Female Pig delivers 10-12 piglets at once)! There was no door-to-door garbage collection system that existed. There was no central garbage waste disposal process that existed. The garbage either used to lie at numerous dumps in the city out of which some waste would reach the 100-acre “Dumping ground” – situated near the Bye-pass road. Anyone passing through that stretch of bye-pass road used to get that foul smell for atleast 1-2kms! Such was the condition of Indore.The Indore Municipal corporation (IMC) with a strong support from the state govt and Indore development Authority (IDA) have worked on all such issues since many years to reach to today’s state of achieving the Cleanest City tag for 3 consecutive years! The Swachh Bharat Survekshan came as a Blessing in Disguise and gave a boost to IMC to work towards the goal of a clean city.It’s not that the Swachh Bharat Survekshan has made any difference. Indore had already started working on all the issues atleast a decade back! And the IMC was working on these issues in parallel. (In IT linguistic, it’s called Agile model of Project Management).There were teams in IMC who were working with the IDA to address the issue of open drains, vacant plots, any other infra-related issues which required IDA’s help. The IDA helped to set up bio-toilets, permanent public toilets and Large waste disposal containers, at the vacant/ available lands across the city.The IMC also had separate teams to address the issue of different stray animals. Like, there were separate team to catch and sterilize stray dogs, separate team to catch stray Cows/ buffalo’s, separate team to catch, sterilize and capture stray Pigs! Today’s condition is such that you would rarely find any stray pigs, stray cows, buffaloes in Indore. The stray dog issue is still open, but there’s progress as compared to past years.Post the launch of the Swachh Bharat Survekshan, the IMC worked on identifying the survey and rating parameters and devised a drill-down approach to top the charts. The city mayor- Mrs. Malini Gaud played a major role in this. A huge budget was sanctioned from the State govt to set up waste disposal plants, water treatment plants, door-to-door waste collection vans, bio-toilets, and huge efforts were put in the campaigning.The campaigning was the key factor here. More than the efforts by the IMC, the deciding factor for city’s cleanliness was to change the “mentality” of the citizens of the city. There were tremendous campaigns on just awareness. On all 4 local radio stations, one could hear advertisements/ interview recordings of IMC officials on domestic waste collection process (dry waste and wet waste segregation), commercial waste collection process, organic waste collection process, etc. The IMC also introduced an app called “Indore-311”- where one citizen can directly reach out to the IMC for addressing a problem. A citizen can just click a picture of waste dumped and post on the Indore-311 app, and within 6hrs, the problem will be resolved.The Swachh Bharat Song- “Swachh Bharat Ka Irada” was used by the IMC collection vans as an indication that the van has arrived at their home to collect the waste. The van (with separate compartment for wet and dry waste) would keep on playing the song on their loudspeaker (placed at the top of the van). The van would come to collect waste from each house, shop, commercial areas. A resident would know (based on the intensity of volume of the song playing) that the van has arrived at their gate. This system of door-to-door garbage collection has now become a habit for all residents. In 2017, after Indore won the 1st award- Singer- Shaan was approached to record a new song called “Indore rahega no.1” also known as “Ho-Halla”. This song is now being used by all the vans now. I bet every Indori knows the song by heart!Conclusion- the campaigning efforts made cleanliness a habit and the campaign song successfully became a personal song for Indoris. With the song, cleanliness is now a part of Personal life of all Indoris! From being careless, people have literally become obsessed with cleanliness.Much efforts were made on the survey participation. IMC had very widely and ‘personally’ got into taking feedbacks and asking the citizens to post feedbacks. On the AB road stretch (20 odd kms), whole BRTC corridor was filled with bill boards of Swachh Bharat Survekshan asking to cast vote through the App, website or through the IVRS call. The process was also mentioned in the ads. Even on the radio channels, the frequency of the “Indore rahega no.1 drive” could be noted. There were periodic interviews by the Mayor, MC Director, MC workers, Citizens on feedback etc on every local radio channels..Post the 1st Award received by Indore, the IMC invested heavily (with the reward money) in rewarding the IMC employees- and set up waste disposal plants. The IMC also bought automatic- vacuum cleaning trucks for the roads. The reward money was well spent!NOTABLE TRANSFORMATIONS-Garbage to CompostMany localities adopted another method to keep the area clean. They started making compost from the waste products. One such example came from Lokmanya Nagar where close to 750 families are in the business of making compost from terracotta pot. These families give garbage to municipal workers only twice in a week.The different localities of Indore are increasingly becoming self-sufficient in garbage disposal. Wet garbage is separated and used for compost making. More than 700 compost making units are working at gardens, hotels, schools and other places across Indore.Discouraging Use of PolythenePolythene is considered as a big reason for litter. People of Indore made a shift in their polythene using habits discouraging its use. Shopkeepers, too, started using polythene bags of permissible thickness.Awareness Among ChildrenTeachers in schools and parents at home made it a point to make their wards aware of the dangers of littering. Children living in Indore have become so aware now that if an elder person is seen throwing garbage on streets, the kids try to discipline them.Public and Social FunctionsAs a norm, wastage defines the scale of an organized social event - from a public rally to festivity or a religious function. But the residents of Indore corrected this age-old mentality and made a conscious effort to carry out cleaning work after every community event.Story of the famous 100-acre dumping ground:Even as the citizens were extra careful about not littering Indore, the 100-acre dumpsite that bore the burden of several years of dumping, was still in a pitiful state.The man In-charge- Municipal Commissioner of IMC- Mr. Asheesh Singh said- “Bio-remediation or bio-mining is an environmentally friendly technique to separate soil and recyclables like plastic, metal, paper, cloth and other solid materials from legacy waste,” adding that, “The work was taken up on war footing, and bio-remediation of legacy waste of approximately 13 lakh metric ton of garbage was completed on 5th December 2018.”“Unlike the previous pilot projects, we decided not to outsource the work to some agency,” Singh says, adding, “They charged us around Rs 500 per cubic meter. That would have cost us approximately 65 crores to clear the entire waste, and it was beyond our financial capacity. Since we required a large number of heavy machineries, we decided to take the trommels, screens, excavators, backhoe loaders on rent and operated by utilizing our own resources. We operated this machinery in two shifts and completed the work in six months. Interestingly, we spent less than Rs 10 crore in the entire process!”While the initial project took over two years to clear 2 lakh metric tons, Singh and his team decided to remove 13 lakh metric tons in just six months! And the result is simply dramatic!Explaining how the garbage was disposed of in an eco-friendly way, the Singh says, “The recyclables recovered from the biomining process was sent for recycling, recyclable polythene was sent to cement plants and for road making. The soil recovered was used for refilling the ground on the same site where greenery is being developed. The recovered construction and demolition waste were recovered and sent to the Construction & Demolition processing facility to produce building materials. The leftover, about 15% of the waste, was sent to a secured landfill.”The total reclaimed land is worth about Rs 400 crore, and it is currently under development as a recreational golf course.The extensive process from dusting the topmost layer to cleaning the entire landfill cost the Indore municipal corporation one-sixth of what the original estimate was.Today, there’s no foul smell near the famous dumping ground of Indore.Other than the 3 consecutive Cleanest City award, Indore has been awarded- GFC Star Rating (5 Star). Also, the below 2 practices have been awarded “Innovation and best practices in context of waste management” in 2019-Waste to Wealth Generation:Choithram Mandi is the largest Fruit & Vegetable Mandi of Madhya Pradesh and generates around 20TPD organic wastes. IMC used to incur a cost of around 3 crore per annum in transferring the waste generated at Choithram Mandi to the centralized organic waste processing plant at Devguradia. It was projected that this transportation cost itself would increase up to Rs. 7.2 crore per year in next 5 years. Therefore, to reduce the transportation cost and processing cost IMC developed an ultra-modern bio methanation processing plant to generate Bio-CNG and Compost on VGF Model in partnership with Mahindra Waste to Energy Solutions Ltd. on a PPP model. The plant utilizes 20 MT per day of fruit and vegetable waste generated from the mandi and converts it into Bio-CNG, compost and electricity from Bio-CNG for captive purpose. For the first time in the country, indigenous biogas cleaning and separation unit was established to purify methane up to a purity level of 95%. Purified methane is compressed at 210 bar pressure and filled into cylinders and about 1000 kgs of Bio-CNG is generated daily and dispensed in city buses.Integration of waste management to public transport:After the success of this plant (food waste to wealth plant) IMC decided to establish a more decentralized plant. Thereafter IMC has installed 15 TPD Capacity Bio-methanation Plant on EPC Model at Kabitkhedi for processing of wet waste to generate clean energy to use in public transport and has started establishment of 50 TPD Capacity Bio-methanation plant on public-private partnership model. This will lead to running of all 100 CNG Buses of public transport through Bio- CNG generated from MSW by December 2019.IMC adopted State of the Art technology Reverse Vending Machines for in-site conversion of plastic bottles to flakes. The machine can crush 90-120 bottles per hour. It can handle bottles up to the size of 2000 ml. It can store flakes up to 10 or 500 bottles of different sizes. The machine has been installed at 10 different public places across the city. This innovative idea was adopted to reduce plastic bottle waste at public places and reduce transportation cost of bottles, if they are collected and transported to recycling units.To encourage the use of public transportation and to create awareness among citizens on disposal of plastic bottles through Reverse Vending Machines, a unique concept of incentivization was included under this intervention. The users can get an incentive of Rs. 5/- per bottle as cash back through PayTM or Rs. 5/- discount coupon to be used in public transport buses both within city and inter-city. To further promote the usage of plastic vending machines, IMC has planned to introduce SWACHH CARD, which is linked to about 1500 shops of Indore, where the user can redeem the obtained points to get the benefit.As our Prime-Minister says- “Mera Bharat Badal raha hai”, I can proudly say- “Mera Indore aaj badla hua hai”!Source:https://swachhsurvekshan2019.orghttps://swachhsurvekshan2019.org/Images/SS2019%20Innovations%20Report_compressed.pdfhttps://swachhsurvekshan2019.org/Images/SS2019%20Report.pdfhttps://www.thebetterindia.com/169584/ias-hero-indore-garbage-management-recycling/https://www.thebetterindia.com/114040/indore-madhya-pradesh-clean-garbage-free-india/7 habits, 4 formulae: Secrets behind Indore's cleanest city tag

(Please note that this was written in February 2019. None of the arguments have changed or needed to be changed, unlike the constantly shifting pro-Brexit “messaging”).TL;DRIf we recognise that No Deal Brexit involves a significant re-configuration of the UK’s current economy and trading practices, then any “logical rational reason” needs to be quantifiable and justifiable as worthwhile to the country as a whole. It is not the same as the logic involved with helping an old lady cross the road or doing something grumpy just because you woke up with a hangover. This is simply because it is not logical or rational to disrupt an entire economy and 63 million people’s lives based on fallacies, vague assumptions, grouses, personal dissatisfactions, hidden motives, etc. (as then there is no way to quantify the benefits, if any).Bearing the above in mind, let’s now explore some common supposedly “rational reasons” why people want No Deal Brexit.“Reason” 1Here is a common one: “Because the UK voted to leave the EU.”I acknowledge it is a fact that 52% of voters chose to leave the EU. However, please let me propose another example of such a “fact”, which goes:Let’s say someone called Boris, promises to a group of people that they will get a free lunch every day cooked by Gordon Ramsay, and all they have to do to get quality free lunches is just vote for “Free Lunch”. Needless to say, “Free Lunch” won the vote. And these people winning the vote for a free lunch would be an undeniable fact.However, Boris has never talked with Gordon Ramsay, Boris does not know how much Mr Ramsay will charge, Boris has no idea what sort of dishes the voters like to eat, and worst of all: Boris does not have any money or budget anyway. But his voters still want to believe that the fact that they voted for free lunches is relevant, even though they realise by now that Boris can never deliver them anything, let alone free lunches from a world-class cook.In short, all the Brexit promises were made by people with no responsibility or capacity or understanding of how to deliver any of the conflicting promises. That is why Brexit promises often conflict with each other and reality - they are just empty words made up by people who have no ownership of the problems they cause because they do not have to deliver anything.The question therefore is, Are “facts” like this relevant? Clearly not when no feasible delivery mechanism is available - it’s even worse than “the cheque’s in the post”. Accepting No Deal therefore would be like picking up and eating grass after being promised free fine lunches. It is actually a quantifiable negative reason to not want No Deal Brexit under any circumstances because believing in an undeliverable “fact” is the same as believing a lie and it actually places you in a worse situation. Here is an example:For those who still fret about the principle of “democracy”, consider this: the Brexit situation is like asking passengers on a plane to vote for which landing strip they want to land on at the destination airport. Although it is very important to land the plane, the passengers are not qualified to know how weather, winds, other traffic, runway conditions, availability of ground staff, etc, would affect the safety of the plane. In cases like this, democracy is useless and in fact, downright dangerous and meaningless. Democracy works only when people are well-informed, and not ignorant about what they are voting for.Even the Leave campaign admitted their lies to the UK public: Vote Leave director admits they won because they lied to the publicThe following “reasons” may also help you understand more.“Reason” 2Another common argument is that there is nothing to worry about: “There will be teething trouble, but there are no drivers for long-term prolonged economic disruption.”Note the complete lack of any information about “teething trouble” or the duration of “long-term”. However, we have actual data about the cost of Brexit even before the “teething trouble” period begins, and it is 2% of GDP, or £40 billion, or roughly £800 million a week. This data comes from the authority monitoring the UK’s economic performance, the Bank of England. Importantly, it reflects what has actually happened and is not a forecast. Brexit uncertainty costs UK £800m a week, Cost of Brexit to UK economy running at £40bn a year – Bank rate-setter, Brexit already costing UK £800m per weekThe Bank of England also states that it expects this under-performance to continue for a “teething trouble” period of unknown length in a No Deal Brexit.So what about “long-term”? In a No Deal situation, it would be imperative to sign up new trade agreements, and five years for a large trade deal would be optimistic. Also we will need at least three large deals to compensate for losing the EU. Although this analysis had sounded dire when it was originally written as it assumed a -1.1% hit on GDP, the reality of -2.0% makes the calculated expected cost to the UK of £129.565 billion over five years look almost cheap now:What is the arithmetic of Brexit?There is to date no similar analysis provided by Leave voters that can determine what “long-term” means or the plausible benefits after such a vague period. Nobody can even list which industries will benefit from a No Deal Brexit.The best Leave can do is this bungling forecast, easily debunked, just by looking at the real data:What will the long-term impact of Brexit be on the UK economy?“Reason” 3A popular argument is that the UK will be freed from the shackles of EU laws: “It allows the UK to diverge from the EU’s trade and regulatory policy. Divergence from the EU’s trade and regulatory policy is exactly where all the benefits of Brexit are to be found. No deal allows us to start working on them immediately.”There is a huge plausibility deficit in this EU regulatory argument (which also smacks of the “sovereignty” argument), and the deficit can be exposed quite easily. In the decades of UK being a member of the EU, the UK has objected to only 72 EU regulations out of 4,514 proposed. The entire list is here: The 72 laws the UK voted againstThe argument of running free of EU regulation means that each and every one of these laws have had a negative economic impact on the UK, so a diligent Leave voter should be able to place a value on each of the 72 laws.So, as examples, the UK voted againstA ban on livestock growth-boosters with hormonal, thyrostatic or beta-agonist effects (carcinogenic residue in meat) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01996L0022-20081218&from=ITSafety advisers dealing with transport of dangerous goods on public roads must be properly trained and regulated https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996L0035&from=ENTrucks for livestock journeys over 8 hours must have bedding, feed, water, ventilation, partitions and access for inspectors EUR-Lex - 31998R0411 - EN - EUR-LexTherefore, what is the calculated loss to the UK? If there is such an urgent need to break free of such laws, then what is the benefit to the UK of voting against a human anti-cancer directive? Has anyone done any calculations at all? I would suggest not, else we would have seen them by now. In the absence of any quantifiable benefits, this is a spurious contrived argument. In any case, Ireland also has the English legal system and they have absolutely no problems working within the EU.But. There is a even worse outcome once we are free of EU regulations. In a No Deal Brexit situation, the UK would be desperate to sign trade agreements with other large countries - it would simply be a fact as the UK needs to trade, or collapse economically. Each and every of the 163 other countries in the WTO know this, and they will extract a price, especially the big economic sharks such as the USA, China and Japan.To put it simply, larger countries will want concessions from the UK, to protect their businesses, their citizens, their investments - and they will want these protections written into UK law.Read that again please: Our new trade partners will require laws which benefit their interests over the interests of the UK before they will do trade deals. That is because they are not stupid. They are large sharks circling a wounded small fish without any trade deals.The simple issue is, once we've left the EU and can “make our own rules”, wouldn't our (new) trading partners then also be involved in making these rules? If our telecoms rules don't suit AT&T or other US telecoms companies, what makes you think the UK government will adopt different rules relative to the ones demanded by our new (and possibly new largest) trading partners, especially if we urgently need a FTA with them?In short, it's all very noble and grand to claim to think of the “interests” of the UK, but the reality is that ALL such interests are linked significantly to those of our big trading partners. If they are happy, then only can we afford to be happy unless we are much bigger sharks than they are, in which case we impose our rules on them first if they don’t have something that we want more.For example, peace is in the interest of the UK, but that doesn't stop the UK selling arms to the Saudis for use in destroying Yemen, an already impoverished country. We want Saudi money more than peace and human rights in Yemen - so the Saudis make us ignore our own principles (UK's Saudi weapons sales unlawful). Food safety is in the interest of the UK, but the UK isn’t even able to object to the US demand that all standards must be dropped prior to opening trade negotiations.What many Leavers are proposing therefore is just exceptionalism without the quantification. Hence it is extraordinarily difficult to justify - it is the same as wandering into a minefield without even an indication of the number of mines under your feet.However, in the EU, we are in an organisation large enough to be able to force even the USA to lower medicine prices. The rationale for staying within a big trade bloc is tangible, as we avoid hormone beef, pus-laden dairy products, chlorinated chickens, overpriced medicines, etc. Instead, we will soon have: Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs and Trump tells May to abandon 'unjustified' food standards for Brexit trade deal.Trade department would lobby for government to accept Trump's demands for weaker food hygiene after Brexit, Whitehall memo saysWhere’s the sovereignty when another country can force you to eat what the EU considers to be substandard food? Where’s even the dignity in that?The iron fist in the USA’s gloves have also been exposed recently: Brexit Wish-List For Trump: What US Lobbyists Want From A Trade Deal With The UKLatest is US tells Britain: Fall into line over China and Huawei, or no trade dealAnd the actual terms the US are demanding from the UK are downloadable on Summary of Specific US-UK Negotiating ObjectivesThe above is all supported in a video interview with the US ambassador: WATCH: US ambassador says the NHS will be 'on the table' in a post-Brexit trade dealAnd to ram home the point, we now see that even Mr Johnson is “disappointed”: Boris Johnson 'disappointed' as Trump aims tariffs at UK productsAs for relying on the US as a “partner”, one might like assess the reliability of such a “partner”, thus:Trump threatens to drop Isis fighters at UK border: 'Have fun capturing them again'The UK will also lose the benefits of the EU’s huge bargaining power which has kept the prices of foreign medications in check, saving money and ensuring supply. Left alone, the UK will face situations such as this:Trump Administration Is Waiving the Public’s Right to Affordable Coronavirus TreatmentsTherein ends that argument.One final point. Some people are led to believe that the EU is some form of oppressive force against the “freedom of the UK.” This is such a lame insulting argument to the people of Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela, etc, where there is real oppression of the people, where people starve and die every single day, sometimes supported by UK arms sales. UK citizens who believe this imbecilic lie should be ashamed that getting £5 billion a year from the EU for regeneration projects can be twisted into some form of “oppression”. Also look at Reason 5 below.“Reason” 4A lot has been said about unfair EU tariffs, which are not attuned to the UK’s needs: “The UK will be able to immediately be able to cut the EU’s tariffs on food, clothing and footwear and diverge from its VAT rules. This will allow for rapid reductions in the cost of essentials and this will disproportionately benefit the poor.”I have to agree that not all EU tariffs are fine-tuned to suit the UK, but that is because the UK is part of a large group of countries. I am not making excuses, but just spelling out the reality.However, what Leave voters do not define is the actual impact of leaving the EU to trade under WTO rules. For example, the UK may well cut tariffs on food, clothing and footwear and that may indeed help low-income shoppers at Morrisons and Primark if it was not for the fact that the over 15% drop in sterling has already pushed up prices for the poor people these Leave voters claim to care about. It also does not mention that the EU tariffs for clothes are under 12% and footwear at 4%, both less than what sterling has fallen by. Once again, fine words, but actual quantification proves that it is a spurious argument.But, the impact actually is not only on imports which can get waived through on zero tariffs, but on exports which will now encounter Most Favoured Nation tariffs from all the countries in the WTO in the absence of trade agreements.So let’s quantify just one UK sector: Farming. And it will be easy because Parliament has already done it for us on points 15–19 in their own review of the impact: Brexit: Trade in Food15. The average EU tariff on dairy products is over 30%, while tariffs could be as high as 87% for frozen beef. Some other examples include a tariff of 46% for cheese or 21% for tomatoes. Some individual products have tariffs over 100%.16. Witnesses told us that tariff-free access to the EU was “crucial”. Tariffs would have a detrimental impact on those agricultural sectors that were dependent on EU exports for their profitability.17. We heard particular concerns about the impact of tariffs on the sheep sector. The EU is very important for UK sheep meat exports, with more than 95% of its export volume destined for the EU. The Welsh lamb market is very dependent on the EU market, with 92% of exports (by value) and 85% (by volume) destined for the EU.18. Sheep exports, with a tariff of at least 50%, would become uncompetitive on the EU market. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) told us that this would have a “devastating” effect on the sector. The Andersons Centre estimated that in Northern Ireland alone, exports to the EU would drop by about 90%. It would have serious consequences in Wales, where sheep farming was such a vital part of the Welsh economy, with producer prices estimated to decrease by 30%.19. The EU market is also important to the beef market, with more than 90% of UK beef exports shipped to other EU countries in 2015/16Additionally, if food is allowed in on zero or low tariffs, then that is the end of most of the UK’s farming industry.And this does not even cover the extreme likelihood of serious problems to do with the transportation/haulage industry. If WTO rules are such a good idea, as proposed by the ERG, then why do nations seek free trade agreements?So, yet another case of fine words, but they make no sense once we attempt quantification.For more detailed explanations about the WTO fallacies regularly trotted out by Leavers, their ignorance is clearly exposed in this great link: Brexit and Trade: An Interviewer's Guide to Exposing Nonsense — ExplainTradeBut that is not the end of the problem with the loss of free movement. A high proportion of the goods transported between the EU and the UK are consolidated consignments, mixed pallets or other forms of groupages. Each item in such mixed loads needs to have individual customs declarations filled in, and will contribute to the estimated 250 million new paper or electronic forms complicating shipments at an estimated cost of £12 billion which will be passed to consumers. And then such new formalities will lead to delays of potentially weeks, resulting in new requirements such as the largest lorry park in Europe being built in Kent. No European freight company will want to transport goods to the UK, especially without knowing when their trucks would be able to return.“Reason” 5We pay the EU for “nothing”. Very often we hear Leave voters say things like: “There is no net benefit for Britain paying into the EU. Britain is a net contributor nation, so Britain would be far better off keeping the net money which is currently lost to other EU states.”Again, this is easy to disprove because it is possible to quantify the real benefit of being in the EU. The analysis is summarised as follows:The simple reality is that a net benefit of between 4%–5% of our GDP is derived from being a member of the EU. This equates to a tangible economic benefit of £62 billion to £78 billion a year. In relative terms, the UK currently derives between +660% to +830% return on its contribution to the EU. It may be more but it is very unlikely to be less. Membership of the EU also raises well over £20 billion a year in tax revenues which can be spent on the country. In tax revenues terms alone, the UK derives between 220% to 276% return on its contribution.The full analysis is on:Are Brexit supporters correct or wrong to assume there's no net benefit of paying into the EU?“Reason” 6Some Leavers have a way with words, such as: “You will no longer have it your way. You are going to feel threatened as we have felt threatened. You can lose your hope as we lost ours.”Clearly there can be no quantification of such a “reason”, but it does not mean we should ignore it. And without doing the maths for once, some suggestions for answers are (i) Is the UK doomed to becoming meaner and angrier no matter how Brexit turns out? and (ii) Is Brexit a symptom or the cause of the political turmoil we are currently seeing in the UK?As for any democracy “deficit” with the EU, I suggest you review what the UK government has done to our democracy to date. These are all undeniable facts:UK versus EU democracy“Reason” 7Many Leavers often moan abstractly that the UK joined a trade bloc in 1973 and did not subscribe to becoming more integrated into the EU. This is an unfair, revisionist view and patently not true as shown in the following letter to the people written by the Prime Minister in 1972 before the UK signed up to join the EEC:And there was another referendum held about EEC membership later on Thursday 5 June 1975, and UK voters approved continued EC/EEC membership by 67% to 33% on a national turnout of 64%.From a chronological viewpoint to explain this result, the facts are that in 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average. But by 1973, it was about 10% below the EU6 average when it joined the EC. It has then risen within less than a decade of joining and have been comparatively stable ever since.The UK joined in 1973 and one common Leave point is that this act prompted a recession later that year which continued into 1974. The implication is the economic impact was so bad that joining the EC prompted an immediate recession. However, they never mention the widespread industrial actions happening all around the UK that year; they pretend that nation-stopping strikes did not have any economic impact, nor the serious oil crisis at the time. They even seem to be able to forget the 3-Day Week which the country had to impose: Three-Day WeekLeavers then also claim joining the EU killed off the “extant markets” of the UK. By this, they mean the Commonwealth (which had already started to stop trading with the UK) and/or the free trade area integration idea which never worked in the first place; in short, nobody cared about the UK’s economic plight.So, in that case, how would a Leaver explain the change from a negative 10% economic underperformance to parity and above within a decade or so? I mean, what was the single significant event that tipped the balance and got the UK economy going in the 1970s? Is it possibly joining the EC? Else what was the UK going to do? Even the IMF would not lend to the UK.As for the UK’s much-maligned EU membership fee (the next Leave misinformed argument), even Vote Leave figured out it was still beneficial to pay it:Are Brexit supporters correct or wrong to assume there's no net benefit of paying into the EU?So in light of the facts and history, it is staggering that these ill-informed people can still offer any credibility to Minford and co:What will the long-term impact of Brexit be on the UK economy?“Reason” 8Some of the economic arguments for Brexit claim that the EU has a continuously shrinking share of the global market, and the economic share of world GDP is a line continuously going downwards. This is totally true and is an undeniable fact. However, every G7 country’s share of global GDP is also falling, and this is because most of the less developed countries around the world are finally catching up on economic growth.Regardless of the falling global GDP share of the EU, the UK had the best growing economy of all the G7 countries for years, so saying the EU has been a drag on the UK is like saying Gordon Ramsay’s 3-Michelin star restaurant is rubbish because the same street has 10 bad restaurants. There is simply no correlation or link. In the following chart, note how well the UK has been doing in the years before the referendum, and this is a chart of the UK against the biggest economies of the world, not the EU:However, Leavers also promote the fallacy that because the world outside the EU is growing faster economically than the EU, that this is somehow a good reason to leave as we can trade more outside the EU. But this is a ridiculous, shallow, egoistic fallacy, and the explanation is as follows:The world’s population is 7 billion, of which around 80% earn less than $10 a day. The figures for people earning more than $10 is harder to quantify as there is little research available, but let’s assume, from simple extrapolation, that less than 10% earn more than $50 a day (£38.50 a day, £192 a week, £10,000 a year) - in reality, the steepening of the wealth curve implies a much lower number than 10%, but let’s never mind about it and stick with an optimistic 10%. Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a DayNote also that in 2016, the poverty line in the UK was annual incomes of £15,000 or less: The poverty line in BritainThat optimistically-estimated 10% of the world earning $50 a day or more gives a population of around 700 million around the world who can actually potentially afford to purchase the high-quality expensive secondary goods/services that the UK produces. The populous Far East already produces most, if not all, of the goods/services that the UK offers (and at lower costs) so there are few unique selling points for UK products there. Probably ditto for the USA, especially under Trump. That leaves a huge wealthy bloc called the EU, which we want to leave. So if you consider the actual size of the markets available to the UK outside the EU (700 million - 450 million EU citizens = 250 million people), the reality is that we are already dealing with most of these non-EU markets already.And before anyone mentions UK’s exports of services, here are the facts: “Europe has been a major destination for UK exports of services; this trend continued in 2017 when UK exports of services to Europe (£80,938 million) accounted for nearly half of the overall total for UK exports of services (£162,141 million).” International trade in services, UKSo although it is a fact that markets are growing faster outside the EU, the thing is: most of them cannot afford UK goods/services anyway, so how does this help the UK when these growing markets can buy cheaper and better from themselves, other blocs and other countries? At present, the UK has a captive market of around 450 million people in the EU who can actually afford UK goods and services, but after Brexit, the EU can revert to being a self-sufficient bloc or buying cheaper than from the UK and the UK becomes just another non-EU country competing to export goods and services to the EU.The only way the UK can effectively compete and expand in the non-EU market is to lower costs significantly. That usually can only mean fewer worker protections, less safety, fewer rights, less oversight of working conditions plus probably more lower cost migrants as the UK aim to climb back down to sordid working conditions, like many of the non-EU countries.Note that at least 4.1 million children are already living in poverty in the UK today, implying that their families themselves cannot afford premium UK goods and services, so how can the UK closing off their largest, most accessible market of 450 million people help UK citizens in any way? UK Poverty 2018But that is not all. In the modern world, supply and demand forces need to be balanced pretty quickly. If a customer wants re-supplies or new parts to fit in his factory, he wants it NOW, not on some indeterminate date in the future. This is part of the gravity theory of trade, which is simply that we tend to deal with our closest neighbours more than we deal with far away countries. As a member of the EU, we also have the benefit of frictionless trade which allows our factories to operate using a JIT (Just In Time) production model which is very efficient and cost-effective - parts and supplies take a very few days or sometimes just hours to arrive. JIT is much less feasible if your suppliers are far away:The Brexit fallacy of “better trade” outside the EU looks like this:Our new target customer countries will be very far away and it is highly unlikely they will engage the UK as high-volume, reliable suppliers for their factories.Furthermore, lest you still think there is hope, we should analyse the very “best case” scenario for Brexit by Patrick Minford, and the full analysis is on:What would be the long term effects, both positive and negative, of brexit on British economy?Reason 9? I am still searching for a single logical, rational reason for a No Deal Brexit. In all honesty, No Deal Brexit can only make sense if you benefit in some way from the UK’s economic disaster, such as disaster capitalists, social engineers or foreign capitalists wanting to break up institutions like the NHS. Or if you are wealthy enough not to care. Or if you are one of the manipulators and lobbyists who have been undermining citizens’ welfare for decades: Is Brexit the result of political corruption going back many years?But the question is: are these people’s private, selfish motives offering a logical and rational reason for No Deal Brexit for the country as a whole?Anyway, as the question request, don’t think emotionally - think rationally and logically and you will immediately smell the fetid stink of incompetence, manipulation, cynical misinformation and outrageous rank lies.Mostly, Brexit was/is about fallacies, as explained in Was the entire Brexit campaign based on lies?AddendumTo be honest, I am not a huge fan of many economists, having worked with quite a few over decades, and the ones I like/respect are those who think quantitatively and is able to process empirical data sensibly while relying on real-life historical scenarios. Such a gentleman is Adam Posen, and if you can spare 20 minutes or so to watch the video below, it is possible that your understanding of Brexit will be enhanced exponentially: