|
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 |
On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things.
The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial.
|
On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial.
I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend.
As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank/GBP is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB/Euro, right ?
The UK already has full control of its currency.
...
|
On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ...
Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default.
If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. 
And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
|
On October 27 2016 05:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ... Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default. If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
See just point 1. in my large post before. The currency depreciation effects are already fully priced in by market participants when you look at FTSExGBPUSD.
|
And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
You pay more than you get to get access to poorer markets where your companies can dominate because of their technological and financial advantages.
|
On October 27 2016 05:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
You pay more than you get to get access to poorer markets where your companies can dominate because of their technological and financial advantages.
Psht.... Stop destroying the flavor of the year line.
Just a year ago it was all about how the rich nations in the EU are exploiting the poor. This year suddenly it is the poor exploiting the rich. But it is probably worth it for the rich nations to stay another year. Next year the rich will be the exploiting ones again!
|
On October 27 2016 05:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ... Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default. If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons. See just point 1. in my large post before. The currency depreciation effects are already fully priced in by market participants when you look at FTSExGBPUSD.
I know, what i am saying is i don't think this is the case a couple of years ahead from now.
That's how it always goes - if you can decide yourself what to do in a situation like this. As UK can. Or can you show me an example where this has ever eventually not happened in a modern world?
EDIT:
On October 27 2016 05:12 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:04 Sent. wrote:And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
You pay more than you get to get access to poorer markets where your companies can dominate because of their technological and financial advantages. Psht.... Stop destroying the flavor of the year line. Just a year ago it was all about how the rich nations in the EU are exploiting the poor. This year suddenly it is the poor exploiting the rich. But it is probably worth it for the rich nations to stay another year. Next year the rich will be the exploiting ones again!
It's probably both in a way. And noone wins.
|
On October 25 2016 17:34 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread... Xenophobic? Not even a little bit. On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. By the way I am still waiting for you to make good on your stated intentions to stop posting, but I see it was just an attempt to make sure nobody responds to your outrageous statements instead. When you strawman another poster, only to be pointed out on the hyposcrisy, you respond by saying that everything you contribute is meaningless. Why should anybody take you seriously? You flip-flop even faster than Trump. See, you can have a point of view. It's not like I can't understand certain points of view, or have never spoken to the other half who voted to leave the EU. The problem is that you just spew out utter garbage to support your opinion of the day, even to the point of saying that you can say whatever you like, even if it contradicts a post written the day before, just to support the mass the contradictions you write. Yes of course you can write whatever you like. Hey, it is after all a free country (a forum is not a country, and in actuality in the UK there is a lot you cannot say or do legally; for instance incitement to hatred or disrupting public order, but I'll ignore that), but you don't seem to understand that if you don't logically connect sentences together, you cannot feel aggrieved if that is pointed out towards you. It doesn't help that all you seem to talk is in nonsensical soundbites, instead of talking about issues. It's not a hard concept. If you want to put forth a point of view, you must do so in a manner that is logically consistent, rather than sounding like you picked up a few angry words from your father and are just repeating it in the vague hope that people will nod along with you. Look: if you want me to stop posting then stop trying to get in the last snide word in the hope I won't defend myself. You just presented a strawman and then started talking about strawmen. There's nothing xenophobic about saying that there are illiterate thugs in Europe. It is also the case that the people who benefit most from free movement are the people who would otherwise be incapable of moving to the country they want to move to. In other words, the people who are insufficiently educated/lacking skills to secure a job there. You don't like my tone, which is understandable, but me being blunt is not me being illogical. Does freedom of movement mean that every illiterate thug in Europe has the right to live in the UK? Yes. Are facts xenophobic? No. All you do is wait for me to say something that you can intentionally misinterpret in order to virtue signal. That doesn't constitute an argument.
Wow, just wow bartown. So you can declare to stop posting but it is conditional on no-one criticizing that same post? But apparently you JUST have to respond. You know that we can all see the history of this thread right? I didn't respond to you at all, you went ahead and decided to post a table and a one liner. So not only can you not adhere to your own self proclamations, you will also just outright lie.You just simply lack any principles at all.
In the end, you equated all EU immigrants with illiterate thugs. That's why I am quoting it. There's no need to pretend it is something else; for either it means that you are willing to turn your back on anything you have written, or it is yet another instance where you lack command of the English language.
On October 25 2016 17:34 bardtown wrote:
I didn't strawman that idiot, either. He literally came to the thread, then read (supposedly) one single sentence and made some asinine comparison implying that I am a racist. It was about as low value a post as could be conceived of, and then he got upset for being called out on it. My contention: people should criticise my posts based on their content. His contention: I shouldn't criticise his post for its complete lack of content.
If my posts are so illogical it should be easy for you to deconstruct them and show me where I'm going wrong. As it stands, you haven't done that once. Either give it a shot or leave me alone.
Yes lets give it a shot. In fact I'll just combine it with your contention.
On October 23 2016 23:21 bardtown wrote:
Free country. 'Contribute' in whatever meaningless, vapid way you see fit.
Well, that was easy. Oh and by the way, please stop with your sense of victimhood already by the way. This is a forum. This is a discussion. There is no reason for you to ask people who disagree with you to stop replying to your posts. Unless it hurts too much to have dissenting opinions prick your bubble.
On October 25 2016 17:34 bardtown wrote:
Let me give you some more xenophobic bigotry to practice on:
'Children' coming from Calais to the UK should have checks to ensure they are, in fact, children. We have known about the problem of men posing as children on the continent for years now, and there is absolutely no excuse for not having learnt from those experiences. The government has given charities much too free a reign when their motivation is clearly to help as many people get into the UK as possible and not to actually enforce the specifics of the policy the government has decided on. Parents are entirely justified in having concerns about their children being in classes with adult men.
And some homophobic bigotry:
The verdict in the NI bakery case was wrong. The bakery should have the right to withhold their services and suffer/benefit from the market response to their decision. I suspect that if the bakery staff were Jewish and the request was a swastika then the judge would not have come to the same conclusion about making the cake not implying support for the message. Where, then, do you draw the line? Must the bakery necessarily decorate cakes with explicit messages/imagery on request? Reminds me of the outrage about that lady being denied access to a club because she wasn't wearing high heels. Either businesses have the right to make arbitrary rules or they don't. I don't see the relevence this has to anything I have written. This is about the same level of kremlin whataboutism.
___________________________________________________________________
BTW, you guys from across the sea keep talking about the refugee crisis. UK is not part of the Schengen zone. Any and all of the relatively minute amounts of refugees accepted by UK is not related to EU immigration at all and is of UK's own volition. Bardtown for instance loves to talk about it, even though I have assured him plenty of times about these facts, but instead he then deflects into talking about homosexuals and swaztikas. So yes, kickboxer, if bardtown is angry about immigrants, it is eastern europeans he is angry about. Afterall, to him, you are all illiterate thugs. raynpelikoneet, UK is also not part of the Eurozone. It is simple fact that can be checked.
|
Wait i totally misread your last post MyLovelyLurker.
Let me look at this in more detail tomorrow.
|
On October 27 2016 05:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 05:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ... Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default. If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons. See just point 1. in my large post before. The currency depreciation effects are already fully priced in by market participants when you look at FTSExGBPUSD. I know, what i am saying is i don't think this is the case a couple of years ahead from now. That's how it always goes - if you can decide yourself what to do in a situation like this. As UK can. Or can you show me an example where this has ever eventually not happened in a modern world?
Russia, Turkey, South Africa, Japan and the UK itself in the financial crisis are all examples of where currency depreciations hardly helped. It might be due to global supply chains which causes the costs of imported inputs to go up diminishing the competitive advantage you get from the depreciation.
|
On October 27 2016 05:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 05:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ... Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default. If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons. See just point 1. in my large post before. The currency depreciation effects are already fully priced in by market participants when you look at FTSExGBPUSD. I know, what i am saying is i don't think this is the case a couple of years ahead from now. That's how it always goes - if you can decide yourself what to do in a situation like this. As UK can. Or can you show me an example where this has ever eventually not happened in a modern world? EDIT: Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:12 mahrgell wrote:On October 27 2016 05:04 Sent. wrote:And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
You pay more than you get to get access to poorer markets where your companies can dominate because of their technological and financial advantages. Psht.... Stop destroying the flavor of the year line. Just a year ago it was all about how the rich nations in the EU are exploiting the poor. This year suddenly it is the poor exploiting the rich. But it is probably worth it for the rich nations to stay another year. Next year the rich will be the exploiting ones again! It's probably both in a way. And noone wins.
Easy, the Eurozone. Your argument is inconsistent. The Euro is down 22% in two years and PMIs show very little pickup. You can't have it both ways.
Alternately, as a counterexample to devaluation as a panacea, cf. recently Venezuela, earlier Zimbabwe, I'd advise you read up on the Weimar republic, etc. All well documented in monetary policy books, I'd suggest you pick up something like 'This time is different' by Reinhardt to read about it.
|
On October 27 2016 01:02 MyTHicaL wrote:
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.
Absolutely and to your point the situation is totally similar in Germany with Alternative Fur Deutschland going strong and election year coming up.
|
Before i go to bed, for tomorrow; RvB can you elaborate more on Japan?
Is there (has there been) some super big economical depression i am unaware of?
Which year(s) (era) are you talking about with other countries you mentioned?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Depreciation is great for supporting local industries and exports. It sucks for imports and for people who want to spend abroad.
The U.K. is too dependent on imports for a weak currency to be a good idea. That said, the GBP was doing really poorly before Brexit too.
|
On October 27 2016 05:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Easy, the Eurozone. Your argument is inconsistent. The Euro is down 22% in two years and PMIs show very little pickup. You can't have it both ways.
I just said it's a disaster because of what it is. 
I mean.. You know my argument, right? What the... haha^^
|
On October 27 2016 05:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Easy, the Eurozone. Your argument is inconsistent. The Euro is down 22% in two years and PMIs show very little pickup. You can't have it both ways.
I just said it's a disaster because of what it is. I mean.. You know my argument, right? What the... haha^^
You realize the Eurozone is engaging in monetary debasement through QE right now, right ?
Your earlier point is Brexit's a good idea because then the UK is free do the same and it always works. That's wrong four ways : the UK has done the same already, the UK is perfectly free to do the same already, the dynamics of its services and import economy make its transmission mechanisms less powerful, and there are many recent examples of debasement failing, as other posters and I have pointed out.
...
Don't wanna sound patronizing but you should really read up about Japan's late 80s crisis at least.
|
On October 27 2016 05:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Easy, the Eurozone. Your argument is inconsistent. The Euro is down 22% in two years and PMIs show very little pickup. You can't have it both ways.
I just said it's a disaster because of what it is. I mean.. You know my argument, right? What the... haha^^
No, just what is your argument? I can agree with the Euro being a general disaster, but the argument that that it is a disaster because it is what is, is just circular and doesn't mean anything.
|
On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 03:49 bardtown wrote: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.
Mm. There are some objectionable ideas here, but putting those aside for the moment - it's clear that you made your decision based primarily on domestic economics. I made mine based primarily on international politics and, if my perception of the EU's future is even close to accurate, my politics will trump even your rather out there economics in terms of net gain. It's also clear that you haven't engaged with the political arguments and that you've bought into the opposing bullshit media case about Brexiteers being nothing more than knee jerking xenophobes. Refugee applications are entirely unrelated to Brexit. Even for those people who were concerned about middle eastern immigration, with regards to the Brexit vote that was via the mechanism of European free movement if/when they become naturalised.
I could list off a political argument for every economic argument you have, but you're not interested, perhaps because you're unaffected by those issues - unlike the majority of the country. I cannot fathom being so unprincipled as to make a decision like this based purely on economics. What the fuck use is economic analysis that does not account for the unfolding political situation? No use at all. It's like turning down chemotherapy that might give you decades of life because you don't want to feel ill for the duration of the treatment.
To some of your specific points. You're projecting minimum 6% inflation; that's higher than the financial crisis, and meanwhile the BoE is talking about slightly above 2%.
Then your point about GSK/research is just daft. My family live in Cambridge. I know very well how diverse these cities are. What in the flying fuck does that have to do with Brexit? We're not going to suddenly start rejecting foreign students/academics. It's just a nonsensical point. As is the suggestion that Oxbridge/Imperial are our only capable research universities. They're the only ones top 10 in the world, maybe, but we have dozens of world class universities that operate at the cutting edge. It's like reducing the US to CalTech and MIT. GSK, for example, may be based in Cambridge, but they also fund research at many other universities in the UK. In fact every university I've been to does research with GSK.
Sterling being settled means that the uncertainty has been factored in already. Once the uncertainty is gone, it will be factored out.
You know, it's really not productive to just list a bunch of points and slam them against each other and hope one set is heavier than the other. If you want to assess the situation you need to understand things in their context. I've acknowledged that there will be a cost to Brexit. It won't be the 10%, 10 years bullshit that you're talking about, putting down every aspect of the UK because you're ideologically driven, but there will be some cost. To get out of a completely unsustainable situation, it's a price worth paying.
On October 27 2016 05:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 05:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 05:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:51 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 04:46 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
[....]
These are all very real, factual, reported, negative impacts of Brexit, where all estimates point to double-digit declines in our wellbeing next year.
This is just my opinion but i will say one thing. The things you linked above this are a prime example why people who write those things are not rich (and therefore do not actually mean anything with their "opinions"). If they were, they would shut up and wait for the right moment to invest into right things. The basic fact is that having a total control of your own currency and how you deal with it (and your economy as a whole) gives you more options to grow, regardless of "bad times". Basically EU (even without EURO) does not offer this as much as not being a part of EU does. And this incudes only a small part of economy. Still the most crucial. I think you are mistaking journalists & economists ( with very little $$ to invest ), and macro hedge fund managers, my friend. As per the currency benefits of hardcore devaluation, you realize the UK is a services, rather than manufacturing/exports, economy, right ? And that Bank is fully independent and has nothing to do with the ECB, right ? ... Yes, what i was trying to say is that when the currency falls "a lot" it becomes cheap for other countries and it is more beneficial to import stuff from UK, travel there, spend more money there, invest there etc.. because it is simply cheaper than before -> economy raises by default. If this was not what you were arguing about earlier then my apologies, but basically economic depression "cures" itself by making things cheap and therefore addicting investors etc. With EU, this doesn't happen because even if your country is in shit, you play by "someone else's rules". Just look at Greece for example. They are gone without any possibility to recover, ever, as long as they stay in EU. That's a simple fact. And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons. See just point 1. in my large post before. The currency depreciation effects are already fully priced in by market participants when you look at FTSExGBPUSD. I know, what i am saying is i don't think this is the case a couple of years ahead from now. That's how it always goes - if you can decide yourself what to do in a situation like this. As UK can. Or can you show me an example where this has ever eventually not happened in a modern world? EDIT: On October 27 2016 05:12 mahrgell wrote:On October 27 2016 05:04 Sent. wrote:And rich countries (which i consider UK part of) pay more than they get from EU. So why stay? I don't really see any good reasons.
You pay more than you get to get access to poorer markets where your companies can dominate because of their technological and financial advantages. Psht.... Stop destroying the flavor of the year line. Just a year ago it was all about how the rich nations in the EU are exploiting the poor. This year suddenly it is the poor exploiting the rich. But it is probably worth it for the rich nations to stay another year. Next year the rich will be the exploiting ones again! It's probably both in a way. And noone wins. Easy, the Eurozone. Your argument is inconsistent. The Euro is down 22% in two years and PMIs show very little pickup. You can't have it both ways. Alternately, as a counterexample to devaluation as a panacea...
It does not need to be a panacea - it is a shock absorber. The fundamentals of the British economy were strong before the vote and they are strong now. Eurozone is a completely different scenario.
|
On October 27 2016 05:47 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Don't wanna sound patronizing but you should really read up about Japan's late 80s crisis at least.
I have three questions:
Did Japan recover - how are they doing now, after that?
Do you think Japan, as a arbitary part of EU at that point, wpuld have same chances as recovering?
Would you say for example Greece, in a situation they are atm, has same chances of recovery than Japan at that time?
For comparison, at the time of Japan crisis, their unemployment rate was at max at ~5%. Japan also has way less pressure since most of their debt is national, not from foreign investors. I mean sure, if you think from an investors perspective it's (still) not really going well there, but for example unemployment rate in UK (for common people - and what common ppl care about) has been as low as in Japan (during their crisis) last time in 1980's, except for... ironically now for the past couple of months...
|
On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 04:34 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 03:49 bardtown wrote: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. Mm. There are some objectionable ideas here, but putting those aside for the moment - it's clear that you made your decision based primarily on domestic economics. I made mine based primarily on international politics and, if my perception of the EU's future is even close to accurate, my politics will trump even your rather out there economics in terms of net gain. It's also clear that you haven't engaged with the political arguments and that you've bought into the opposing bullshit media case about Brexiteers being nothing more than knee jerking xenophobes. Refugee applications are entirely unrelated to Brexit. Even for those people who were concerned about middle eastern immigration, with regards to the Brexit vote that was via the mechanism of European free movement if/when they become naturalised. I could list off a political argument for every economic argument you have, but you're not interested, perhaps because you're unaffected by those issues - unlike the majority of the country. I cannot fathom being so unprincipled as to make a decision like this based purely on economics. What the fuck use is economic analysis that does not account for the unfolding political situation? No use at all. It's like turning down chemotherapy that might give you decades of life because you don't want to feel ill for the duration of the treatment. To some of your specific points. You're projecting minimum 6% inflation; that's higher than the financial crisis, and meanwhile the BoE is talking about slightly above 2%. Then your point about GSK/research is just daft. My family live in Cambridge. I know very well how diverse these cities are. What in the flying fuck does that have to do with Brexit? We're not going to suddenly start rejecting foreign students/academics. It's just a nonsensical point. As is the suggestion that Oxbridge/Imperial are our only capable research universities. They're the only ones top 10 in the world, maybe, but we have dozens of world class universities that operate at the cutting edge. It's like reducing the US to CalTech and MIT. GSK, for example, may be based in Cambridge, but they also fund research at many other universities in the UK. In fact every university I've been to does research with GSK. Sterling being settled means that the uncertainty has been factored in already. Once the uncertainty is gone, it will be factored out. You know, it's really not productive to just list a bunch of points and slam them against each other and hope one set is heavier than the other. If you want to assess the situation you need to understand things in their context. I've acknowledged that there will be a cost to Brexit. It won't be the 10%, 10 years bullshit that you're talking about, putting down every aspect of the UK because you're ideologically driven, but there will be some cost. To get out of a completely unsustainable situation, it's a price worth paying.
No one is going to buy your flippant dismassal of each of his points in your first sentance so you can go off on your own tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
