|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt.
|
On October 25 2016 23:44 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit. Show nested quote +the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies. http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/Curious. Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist.
No, the politicians officially argued this discours. The people did not. I tended a bar at the time as a part-time student job, it was ridiculous the level of xenophobic crap I overheard. I don't see what it matters where I lived, Glasgow, Dunstable and Dover in the UK to name a few. So yes to answer your irrelevant question.
The majority of the far-right are anti-racist. Just lol.
I have no idea how you even make such a poll. That research comes from a heavily biased source... yet again.
This is it. This is the last post I afford you. You are delusional, naive and just trolling this thread. I gift you the final word as I am sure you cannot resist the troll-temptation to take it. I can't waste time on such a comedian. You, "sir", are one complete face-palm after another. Thanks for being a great example of the stupidity of the opposition- twas fun.
|
On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt.
This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone.
Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ?
|
On October 26 2016 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its difficult to argue the immigration thing with you bardtown because you and I are coming from such different sets of assumptions that there will simply never be a middle ground we can agree on.
I don't believe we should be age checking child refugees simply because I thinking helping refugees is good as the more we can help, regardless of age, the better. If our first act towards the refugees is one of hostility (and yes, the process of checks which refugees undergo is needlessly hostile and incompetent - as a recent Guardian article showed - if I can find it I will link) chances of successful integration will be massively reduced.
Obviously you are coming from the opinion that we have SOME responsibility but the fewer we need to help the better it is for the current residents of the UK, and we should take as many precautions as possible (if I have this right).
I can't see how a meaningful discussion could occur from that starting point.
I agree in so far as we should definitely help all refugees, regardless of age, gender or religion.
I disagree on the age checking though. It absolutely needs to be done for cases where there is any doubt, because some refugees - though they are indeed a small minority - abuse the system, which hurts the honest refugees. We shouldn't be hostile towards refugees, but we shouldn't simply take every word they say as gospel.
Trust, but verify.
|
On October 26 2016 08:05 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 23:44 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit. the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies. http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/Curious. Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist. No, the politicians officially argued this discours. The people did not. I tended a bar at the time as a part-time student job, it was ridiculous the level of xenophobic crap I overheard. I don't see what it matters where I lived, Glasgow, Dunstable and Dover in the UK to name a few. So yes to answer your irrelevant question. The majority of the far-right are anti-racist. Just lol. I have no idea how you even make such a poll. That research comes from a heavily biased source... yet again. This is it. This is the last post I afford you. You are delusional, naive and just trolling this thread. I gift you the final word as I am sure you cannot resist the troll-temptation to take it. I can't waste time on such a comedian. You, "sir", are one complete face-palm after another. Thanks for being a great example of the stupidity of the opposition- twas fun.
YouGov conducting polling for a cross-party think tank... Yeah, I can see how that would seem terribly biased to someone completely blinded by their own ideology. I'm glad you won't reply to me any more. I hope and trust it will lead to a more constructive thread.
On October 26 2016 08:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt. This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone. Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ?
Neither. The migrant crisis is a symptom of a broken system. Brexit was not a vote on immigration, it was a vote on the EU. Also, we currently have inflation of 1%, up from 0.6%. We are 0.4% poorer, not 20%, although even this is outstripped by earnings growth. Inflation will increase next year as a result of the weaker pound, but it doesn't work the way you suggest that it does - unless we're directly buying goods sold in another currency, which the majority of us rarely have any reason to do.
|
On October 26 2016 08:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt. This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone. Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ?
Yes I was only thinking in terms of the EU as a whole, not even sure if Britain has any kind of refugee or warzone-immigrant problem (probably not, they mostly sound angry about us Eastern Europeans? Squatting Slavs etc.), and I think Brexit was not a smart move for anyone involved, or a honest process... if that even exists in post-modern politics.
In Slovenia we can, for example, certainly take more refugees at this moment to a probable net benefit, even. And the ones we have are pretty well integrated. But that doesn't mean Europe as a whole should just "open the gates!!!"
There are parts of EU that are already subject to real issues, which I believe are essentially rooted in an insurmountable divide between the secular and strongly-religious worldview right now, with the latter radicalizing on all fronts (even Christian with abortus ban and other lame initiatives in this part of Europe, in my country for example the Church is very, very influential), and in real life I have often observed that islamic people will assimilate (only) when absorbed in small numbers of moderates, and that it seems to be very unwise to allow them to bring along priests and footies and set up an ideological base with strong religious authority and resulting enclosed community that is almost never progressive in any way, and will be in friction with your own secular locales, creating divisions and then backlash from the extreme right which in turn spirals into very bad situations like we see in Switzerland or France or Sweden.
Anyway I'm just ranting on the moral responsibility vs. pragmatic reality of helping (all) refugees, this likely has little to do with UK, and post Brexit even less I guess
|
spirals into very bad situations like we see in Switzerland
What did I miss?
|
On October 26 2016 21:59 Velr wrote:What did I miss?
And same for France please.
|
The PMQ was yet another embarassment. Corbyn compares May's plan to that of Baldrick; May retorts that the actor who played Baldrick was a member of the labour party.. I am failing to see the relevance of the repuddle since one is a person and the other a satirical character but let them all geer anyways.
She just keeps spouting this crap about retaining goods and services yet employing selective migration for EU citizens and modifying EU laws; I wonder if she is actually this stupid or just stalling to stay at the head of a dieing serpent for that much longer. Those 4 things all come together or none at all, I don't understand what's so hard to figure out about that.
Politically the EU has to punish the UK. The UK thinks they're so different; if the UK were to get a special deal it would serve as a major argument for, for example, FN (kind of like UKIP, potentially much more extreme) in France. The same similar parties exist in (I believe) nearly all 27 countries and granting a special deal would just enable them to pull the same shit UKIP did in the UK.
|
The PMQ was yet another embarassment. Corbyn compares May's plan to that of Baldrick; May retorts that the actor who played Baldrick was a member of the labour party.. I am failing to see the relevance of the repuddle since one is a person and the other a satirical character but let them all geer anyways.
wow, British politics have top tier bantz haha
|
I'm surprised Corbyn knows Blackadder. It's a bit too contemporary for him, isn't it? 
I think the EU as an institution will feel compelled to 'punish' the UK, but it won't do their image any good and the national governments, as always, will be inclined to economic pragmatism.
|
On October 27 2016 02:04 bardtown wrote:I'm surprised Corbyn knows Blackadder. It's a bit too contemporary for him, isn't it? I think the EU as an institution will feel compelled to 'punish' the UK, but it won't do their image any good and the national governments, as always, will be inclined to economic pragmatism.
Would you considering denying Britain access to the single market if it does not accept free movement of people as 'punishing' the UK?
|
On October 26 2016 16:03 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 08:05 MyTHicaL wrote:On October 25 2016 23:44 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit. the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies. http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/Curious. Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist. No, the politicians officially argued this discours. The people did not. I tended a bar at the time as a part-time student job, it was ridiculous the level of xenophobic crap I overheard. I don't see what it matters where I lived, Glasgow, Dunstable and Dover in the UK to name a few. So yes to answer your irrelevant question. The majority of the far-right are anti-racist. Just lol. I have no idea how you even make such a poll. That research comes from a heavily biased source... yet again. This is it. This is the last post I afford you. You are delusional, naive and just trolling this thread. I gift you the final word as I am sure you cannot resist the troll-temptation to take it. I can't waste time on such a comedian. You, "sir", are one complete face-palm after another. Thanks for being a great example of the stupidity of the opposition- twas fun. YouGov conducting polling for a cross-party think tank... Yeah, I can see how that would seem terribly biased to someone completely blinded by their own ideology. I'm glad you won't reply to me any more. I hope and trust it will lead to a more constructive thread. Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 08:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt. This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone. Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ? Neither. The migrant crisis is a symptom of a broken system. Brexit was not a vote on immigration, it was a vote on the EU. Also, we currently have inflation of 1%, up from 0.6%. We are 0.4% poorer, not 20%, although even this is outstripped by earnings growth. Inflation will increase next year as a result of the weaker pound, but it doesn't work the way you suggest that it does - unless we're directly buying goods sold in another currency, which the majority of us rarely have any reason to do.
I'm gonna try and engage in a civilised economic debate with you. Try this : Your measure of inflation-linked debasement only works on the domestic fraction of the economy. At the very least you'd have to qualify the fraction imported (wrt the UK ) goods and multiply it by the currency shortfall. This is basic math ; and something Brit holidaymakers have seen in airports recently. If you import 50% of your goods and your currency goes to 0, you are 50% poorer. The UK runs a trade deficit, and the current account deficit has just hit a 60 year high. That is financed by foreign currency that has just become that much more expensive. Your math ALSO doesn't work in that inflation needs to be annualized by the average duration of government bonds. For instance when we got downgraded and gilt yields went up, their prices lost five to ten percent, not just one.
Currency debasement passthrough in inflation is sticky and takes time because corporates are FX-hedged. You've already seen the Tesco-Ben&Jerry's price hike feud. This is the warning shot in a long strip of such news next year, when we'll feel the full impact.
Finally, the positive effects of currency debasement on exports are extraordinarily likely to be offset by an earnings recession triggered by lack of investment - nobody in their right mind would invest in the UK now that size of accessible market is uncertain by a factor 5. This is compounded by Bank's inability/unwillingness to hike on holding significant DV01 due to the size of their balance sheet post-QE. We'll see outsourcing and cost-cutting hit in Jan after corporate budgets and targets are established.
Oh and one more thing : leading economic analysts project that sterling's still overvalued by a factor of 10%.
But it wasn't about 'taking back control', was it ? /s
|
On October 26 2016 22:22 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 21:59 Velr wrote:spirals into very bad situations like we see in Switzerland What did I miss? And same for France please.
... really?
Switzerland I confused with Belgium, my bad I am sorry. A foolish mistake.
|
On October 27 2016 02:58 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 22:22 TheDwf wrote:On October 26 2016 21:59 Velr wrote:spirals into very bad situations like we see in Switzerland What did I miss? And same for France please. ... really?
Yes, really. I'm curious about outside perspectives.
|
TheDwf do you not consider Calais' situation bad?
I mean he probably was talking about terrorist attacks but since this conversation is about immigration after all i just thought of asking.
|
Well, there are the terror attacks which are not out of context. Three major cases.
Aside from those there is a spectrum of opinions, my personal being that Paris, at least, has some kind of cultural war going on and rather serious ethnic unrest brewing, as inferred from talking to people and seeing the news / internet.
Would you say that is incorrect?
|
On October 27 2016 02:16 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 16:03 bardtown wrote:On October 26 2016 08:05 MyTHicaL wrote:On October 25 2016 23:44 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit. the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies. http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/Curious. Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist. No, the politicians officially argued this discours. The people did not. I tended a bar at the time as a part-time student job, it was ridiculous the level of xenophobic crap I overheard. I don't see what it matters where I lived, Glasgow, Dunstable and Dover in the UK to name a few. So yes to answer your irrelevant question. The majority of the far-right are anti-racist. Just lol. I have no idea how you even make such a poll. That research comes from a heavily biased source... yet again. This is it. This is the last post I afford you. You are delusional, naive and just trolling this thread. I gift you the final word as I am sure you cannot resist the troll-temptation to take it. I can't waste time on such a comedian. You, "sir", are one complete face-palm after another. Thanks for being a great example of the stupidity of the opposition- twas fun. YouGov conducting polling for a cross-party think tank... Yeah, I can see how that would seem terribly biased to someone completely blinded by their own ideology. I'm glad you won't reply to me any more. I hope and trust it will lead to a more constructive thread. On October 26 2016 08:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt. This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone. Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ? Neither. The migrant crisis is a symptom of a broken system. Brexit was not a vote on immigration, it was a vote on the EU. Also, we currently have inflation of 1%, up from 0.6%. We are 0.4% poorer, not 20%, although even this is outstripped by earnings growth. Inflation will increase next year as a result of the weaker pound, but it doesn't work the way you suggest that it does - unless we're directly buying goods sold in another currency, which the majority of us rarely have any reason to do. I'm gonna try and engage in a civilised economic debate with you. Try this : Your measure of inflation-linked debasement only works on the domestic fraction of the economy. At the very least you'd have to qualify the fraction imported (wrt the UK ) goods and multiply it by the currency shortfall. This is basic math ; and something Brit holidaymakers have seen in airports recently. If you import 50% of your goods and your currency goes to 0, you are 50% poorer. The UK runs a trade deficit, and the current account deficit has just hit a 60 year high. That is financed by foreign currency that has just become that much more expensive. Your math ALSO doesn't work in that inflation needs to be annualized by the average duration of government bonds. For instance when we got downgraded and gilt yields went up, their prices lost five to ten percent, not just one. Currency debasement passthrough in inflation is sticky and takes time because corporates are FX-hedged. You've already seen the Tesco-Ben&Jerry's price hike feud. This is the warning shot in a long strip of such news next year, when we'll feel the full impact. Finally, the positive effects of currency debasement on exports are extraordinarily likely to be offset by an earnings recession triggered by lack of investment - nobody in their right mind would invest in the UK now that size of accessible market is uncertain by a factor 5. This is compounded by Bank's inability/unwillingness to hike on holding significant DV01 due to the size of their balance sheet post-QE. We'll see outsourcing and cost-cutting hit in Jan after corporate budgets and targets are established. Oh and one more thing : leading economic analysts project that sterling's still overvalued by a factor of 10%. But it wasn't about 'taking back control', was it ? /s
If you import 100% of your goods and your currency falls 20% then you're 20% poorer. But for companies that previously imported x because it was, say, 10% cheaper than producing it domestically, there's now a clear motivation (10% the other way) to switch to domestic production. You're not going to continue importing all your goods for long. In part that's how a floating currency acts as a shock absorber, because it bolsters domestic production (and exports). Rebalancing away from importing will then help to address the current account deficit that was probably never sustainable in the first place. We've already seen German exports taking a hit as sterling becomes more competitive. There are other indicators of this effect helping certain sectors.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/24/fewer-uk-firms-are-struggling-despite-brexit-vote-survey-shows
I did say that inflation would kick in next year. Fingers crossed it's not too severe, and that the costs are largely shouldered by multinationals losing customers, with some benefits felt by local producers. I'm not saying we won't be poorer, at least for a time. We will, on aggregate. Expectation is also that unemployment will rise, though not drastically.
Beyond that I don't buy your assessment, though. You seem to be operating under some mistaken assumptions. Britain does not bring in the highest FDI in Europe simply by being in the EU. It has one of the best ratings in the world for ease of doing business, and the best of the G7 economies. There are various other measures where the UK is exceptional, too. Tech infrastructure, for instance. Pharmaceutical companies had a good case for remaining in the EU. The strongest case outside the financial sector, I thought. But we've still seen GSK continuing with massive investment, for example, because there is nowhere better to do research. You're also not accounting for the government actually doing stuff. Especially with this particular government, you can be sure they will be adjusting tax rates and legislation to ensure the UK is as competitive as possible to prevent an exodus.
Markets abhor uncertainty. We won't really know where sterling/bond yields belong until there is clarity on what has actually changed and investors actually know what they're buying. Likewise for business investment, which could potentially boom once Brexit terms are decided and those who have held back make their decisions.
Brexit was a long term investment, for me. Once we actually have that control we voted for, I'm looking forward to seeing how we can refocus on a global outlook and actually having a democratic voice in that process. I'm pretty sure Britain will become an access point to even bigger markets, at least in population terms, and I'm hopeful we'll have closer ties to the countries that share our values/ambitions more closely. We never should have gone down this road.
To the guy asking about single market access: you need to differentiate between access and membership. I do not think the UK can be a member of the single market without free movement. We can still have access though, without all the default tariffs, so I expect a bespoke arrangement with some give and take. What I would consider punishment would be anything that did mutual damage to the EU and the UK, simply for the sake of making Brexit costly.
|
This bardtown guy is pretty smart. You guys in UK will do well. It might take a couple of years, but i will predict you guys will do better than EU in the long run. I mean, there is no way to succesfully put "rich" - "poor" - and "in the middle" countries (with different economical, and social cultures) together and expect them to perform and live a happy life together. That's just pure insanity to assume it will work (in this scale).
It never will, you can't just mix up red and green and decide "we will make this blue", if you get my exaggerated analogy.
|
On October 27 2016 03:49 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 02:16 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 16:03 bardtown wrote:On October 26 2016 08:05 MyTHicaL wrote:On October 25 2016 23:44 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit. the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies. http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/Curious. Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist. No, the politicians officially argued this discours. The people did not. I tended a bar at the time as a part-time student job, it was ridiculous the level of xenophobic crap I overheard. I don't see what it matters where I lived, Glasgow, Dunstable and Dover in the UK to name a few. So yes to answer your irrelevant question. The majority of the far-right are anti-racist. Just lol. I have no idea how you even make such a poll. That research comes from a heavily biased source... yet again. This is it. This is the last post I afford you. You are delusional, naive and just trolling this thread. I gift you the final word as I am sure you cannot resist the troll-temptation to take it. I can't waste time on such a comedian. You, "sir", are one complete face-palm after another. Thanks for being a great example of the stupidity of the opposition- twas fun. YouGov conducting polling for a cross-party think tank... Yeah, I can see how that would seem terribly biased to someone completely blinded by their own ideology. I'm glad you won't reply to me any more. I hope and trust it will lead to a more constructive thread. On October 26 2016 08:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 26 2016 06:40 Kickboxer wrote:
"Helping everyone" in the current reality of 2016 is impossible. It is therefore an impossible position to take. It would be ideal and fantastic, absolutely, but we are at war - in global terms - and most of the conflict isn't even up to us.
As far as I know USA and Russia are taking fuck all refugees? How about SA or the Emirates? Do you think Europe taking the brunt of a global proxy conflict can bring pragmatic positives?
Yes, we should accept to lower our living standard and privilege across the board so the Middle East can stabilize, absolutely. Yes, we should pressure our governments to stay away from these people's resources and support whichever form of governance they chose for themselves (which is not always democracy!).
Nevertheless, allowing profoundly religious people with next to no cultural compatibility flood indiscriminately into Europe is simply naive. There has to be a middle ground or we will get rekt. This is exactly the problem. Irrespective of the moral merits of what you say, and there certainly is some truth to it - especially the mention of Syria as a proxy war - refugees are a statistical non-issue as far as the UK is concerned, unlike what the Brexit campaign was trying to have you believe with their silly 'Take back control' posters. A few thousand at most - so less than a cent of a percent of the population. By opposition, the country has de facto lost 19% of its wealth and GDP in the debasement of sterling from 1.50 to 1.21 to the dollar, and for instance has now lost its position as the fifth economy in the world to France on currency effects alone. Are these two factors commensurate, or is this rather, sadly, the triumph of emotion over reason ? Neither. The migrant crisis is a symptom of a broken system. Brexit was not a vote on immigration, it was a vote on the EU. Also, we currently have inflation of 1%, up from 0.6%. We are 0.4% poorer, not 20%, although even this is outstripped by earnings growth. Inflation will increase next year as a result of the weaker pound, but it doesn't work the way you suggest that it does - unless we're directly buying goods sold in another currency, which the majority of us rarely have any reason to do. I'm gonna try and engage in a civilised economic debate with you. Try this : Your measure of inflation-linked debasement only works on the domestic fraction of the economy. At the very least you'd have to qualify the fraction imported (wrt the UK ) goods and multiply it by the currency shortfall. This is basic math ; and something Brit holidaymakers have seen in airports recently. If you import 50% of your goods and your currency goes to 0, you are 50% poorer. The UK runs a trade deficit, and the current account deficit has just hit a 60 year high. That is financed by foreign currency that has just become that much more expensive. Your math ALSO doesn't work in that inflation needs to be annualized by the average duration of government bonds. For instance when we got downgraded and gilt yields went up, their prices lost five to ten percent, not just one. Currency debasement passthrough in inflation is sticky and takes time because corporates are FX-hedged. You've already seen the Tesco-Ben&Jerry's price hike feud. This is the warning shot in a long strip of such news next year, when we'll feel the full impact. Finally, the positive effects of currency debasement on exports are extraordinarily likely to be offset by an earnings recession triggered by lack of investment - nobody in their right mind would invest in the UK now that size of accessible market is uncertain by a factor 5. This is compounded by Bank's inability/unwillingness to hike on holding significant DV01 due to the size of their balance sheet post-QE. We'll see outsourcing and cost-cutting hit in Jan after corporate budgets and targets are established. Oh and one more thing : leading economic analysts project that sterling's still overvalued by a factor of 10%. But it wasn't about 'taking back control', was it ? /s If you import 100% of your goods and your currency falls 20% then you're 20% poorer. But for companies that previously imported x because it was, say, 10% cheaper than producing it domestically, there's now a clear motivation (10% the other way) to switch to domestic production. You're not going to continue importing all your goods for long. In part that's how a floating currency acts as a shock absorber, because it bolsters domestic production (and exports). Rebalancing away from importing will then help to address the current account deficit that was probably never sustainable in the first place. We've already seen German exports taking a hit as sterling becomes more competitive. There are other indicators of this effect helping certain sectors. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/24/fewer-uk-firms-are-struggling-despite-brexit-vote-survey-showsI did say that inflation would kick in next year. Fingers crossed it's not too severe, and that the costs are largely shouldered by multinationals losing customers, with some benefits felt by local producers. I'm not saying we won't be poorer, at least for a time. We will, on aggregate. Expectation is also that unemployment will rise, though not drastically. Beyond that I don't buy your assessment, though. You seem to be operating under some mistaken assumptions. Britain does not bring in the highest FDI in Europe simply by being in the EU. It has one of the best ratings in the world for ease of doing business, and the best of the G7 economies. There are various other measures where the UK is exceptional, too. Tech infrastructure, for instance. Pharmaceutical companies had a good case for remaining in the EU. The strongest case outside the financial sector, I thought. But we've still seen GSK continuing with massive investment, for example, because there is nowhere better to do research. You're also not accounting for the government actually doing stuff. Especially with this particular government, you can be sure they will be adjusting tax rates and legislation to ensure the UK is as competitive as possible to prevent an exodus. Markets abhor uncertainty. We won't really know where sterling/bond yields belong until there is clarity on what has actually changed and investors actually know what they're buying. Likewise for business investment, which could potentially boom once Brexit terms are decided and those who have held back make their decisions. Brexit was a long term investment, for me. Once we actually have that control we voted for, I'm looking forward to seeing how we can refocus on a global outlook and actually having a democratic voice in that process. I'm pretty sure Britain will become an access point to even bigger markets, at least in population terms, and I'm hopeful we'll have closer ties to the countries that share our values/ambitions more closely. We never should have gone down this road. To the guy asking about single market access: you need to differentiate between access and membership. I do not think the UK can be a member of the single market without free movement. We can still have access though, without all the default tariffs, so I expect a bespoke arrangement with some give and take. What I would consider punishment would be anything that did mutual damage to the EU and the UK, simply for the sake of making Brexit costly.
I like how you feel you need to spell out currency debasement and earnings. Listen, I'll defer to facts - vox populi, experts judgement, and measures of sentiment anytime above a single person's view, whether it be you or me. What does that tell us ?
- Netting off currency impacts, FTSE composited into USD - the only objective value of what the whole financial world with skin in the game thinks of UK Inc - is down 11% since Jun24. There's your two-digit decline, pricing in exports pickup. It's actual.
- 'Fingers crossed inflation is not too severe' - well at the very least it will be currency debasement times part of imports, that's elementary. Right now that number stands at 19% * 30% = 6%+ and if Sterling goes down another 10 we'll lose out 10% all in. In line with previous number.
- Sentiment measures such as the ZEW, usually reliable leading indicators of recessions, are at 5 year low ( www.tradingeconomics.com ).
- The real estate market is beginning to slump. Bloomberg quotes -6% expected next year in London.
Your point about markets abhorring uncertainty is vague. We're 3m in. You don't see stock market volatility up at all. Sterling vol has settled in. Bond yields are up rather than down. And commitment of traders to sterling short is at a high point. Where is the lack of conviction ? Let's not make it up.
- You seem to think 'once Brexit terms are decided' is a short term, unilateral thing. ICYMI Canada-EU negotiations are still going strong 9 years on, Wallonia just veto'ed a treaty this week. 'Business investment could potentially boom'... 9 years on ? Come on mate, that's the definition of a Japanese-style lost decade.
- Bank has reluctantly used a bullet and cut rates as they slashed growth forecast, 'the biggest downgrade to growth for more than 20 years.' (www.ft.com ). That's not what you do when you expect the economy to get better. It's even more controversial to be that dovish in an inflationary environment. By the way and ironically enough re-Amber Rudd statements, Mark Carney, the head of the BoE, is a foreigner. Let's take a look at what he says, shall we :
'But while Mr Carney said the central bank would do it all it could to mitigate the shock of the Brexit vote, he was clear British households faced a poorer future. Forecasting that unemployment will rise, house prices will fall and inflation will go up, the BoE said it would “provide support as the economy adjusts”.
But it warned that much of the downgrade to the outlook — a cumulative 2.5 percentage point hit by 2019 compared with its May forecasts — was because of a knock to the economy’s growth potential “that monetary policy cannot offset”.'
- Your point about research 'But we've still seen GSK continuing with massive investment, for example, because there is nowhere better to do research.' is extraordinarily backward looking. I urge you to take a walk around Oxford or the Shoreditch area, where unsurprisingly the stay vote dominated massively. Mostly everyone there is a European foreigner. Scientists including Nobel prizes are united against Brexit ( www.theguardian.com ) . I respectfully suggest you check out the proportion of foreigners in startups, hedge funds and investment banks, all of them massive tax contributors to budget. Inflammatory rhetoric is threatening to make these people - and their contribution - leave. Oxbridge and Imperial are simply not large enough to sustain the tech part of the economy at scale, and that will take a decade to change, even assuming open borders for talent.
- The City of London is in cardiac arrest right now, since EU passporting rights are not a given anymore now that hard Brexit's a possibility. Come December budgets, banks will start moving staff to the very real alternative of Frankfurt or Paris ( opportunistic tax cuts in both these countries ). That's 3% per annum of GDP at risk, right there - more than annual growth ( www.cityoflondon.gov.uk ). Annualize half of that on a 5 to 10 year government debt duration and again, you find a ballpark 10%+ output gap as to what could've been.
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
Contrast it with... the number of refugee applications in the UK - the 'real', non-EU migrants we need to be 'taken back control' from.
That number is 2,500 per month on average for the last 10 years ( www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk ). Assuming 50% success rate that gives you a stellar 0.03% upward pressure on the population, per annum. Statistical noise.
Is that even worth discussing ? Is that worth 10% of our economy ? 10 years of negotiations ? Really ?
The Brexit media case - we'd get immigration benefits without paying a steep economic price - was a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
