|
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 06:16 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote: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.
I have always said that Remain had the edge on short term economics. There was never any doubt. He's arguing a completely void point if he doesn't engage with what happens beyond the next couple of years (i.e. what every single Brexit voter actually voted for).
|
On October 27 2016 06:25 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:16 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote: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. I have always said that Remain had the edge on short term economics. There was never any doubt. He's arguing a completely void point if he doesn't engage with what happens beyond the next couple of years (i.e. what every single Brexit voter actually voted for).
You have also made sll sorts of erroneous claims about inflation and it not really mattering as well as underplaying 'a couple of years' of economic turmoil.
And how can you make claims about 'every single Brexit voter'?
|
On October 27 2016 06:44 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:25 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 06:16 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote: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:[quote] [quote] 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. I have always said that Remain had the edge on short term economics. There was never any doubt. He's arguing a completely void point if he doesn't engage with what happens beyond the next couple of years (i.e. what every single Brexit voter actually voted for). You have also made sll sorts of erroneous claims about inflation and it not really mattering as well as underplaying 'a couple of years' of economic turmoil. And how can you make claims about 'every single Brexit voter'?
What erroneous claim did I make about inflation...?
|
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.
|
Translation: you don't like the facts when they don't coincide with your preconceptions. As both I and the other guy noted, the inflation as a result of Brexit has not even filtered through yet...
|
On October 27 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:
Translation: you don't like the facts when they don't coincide with your preconceptions.
Incorrect. You know nothing of my views on this.
Address the points made by MyLovelyLurker rather than divert the discussion.
|
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk.
Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times:
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvudZb1WYAAZdck.jpg:large)
|
On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk.
You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post.
I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please.
|
On October 27 2016 07:03 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post. I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please.
You're not. You're filling the thread with spam. If you read the rest of the post you would know that I responded specifically to a number of his points. Those I did not respond to I probably agreed with, even if I felt he overstated their relevance.
|
On October 27 2016 07:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:03 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post. I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please. You're not. You're filling the thread with spam. If you read the rest of the post you would know that I responded specifically to a number of his points. Those I did not respond to I probably agreed with, even if I felt he overstated their relevance.
I have read your post and you dismissed them. If you think I am wrong then please restate it as it was not clear. I have an open mind but will only be convinced by a cogent debate.
|
On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times:
Actually, you haven't even begun to.
And since in this cost-benefit analysis we both agree there are costs - and certainly some quantifiable ones, I'd like to hear about the benefits other than ad hominems, four-letter expletives, or 'my family'.
|
On October 27 2016 07:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:03 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post. I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please. You're not. You're filling the thread with spam. If you read the rest of the post you would know that I responded specifically to a number of his points. Those I did not respond to I probably agreed with, even if I felt he overstated their relevance.
I'm not even doing this on purpose...
GSK.L 24 Jun in $ : 1482p * 1.50 = 2223
GSK.L spot in $ : 1626p * 1.22 = 1984
1984/2223 - 1 = -10.8%
Just perfectly in line with my earlier FTSE calc. This means worlwide investors agree that GSK as an international company with cash-flows denominated in all currencies is now worth more than 10% less than before Brexit. Are you gonna continue shooting yourself in the foot ? Keep the examples coming.
|
On October 27 2016 06:47 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:44 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 06:25 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 06:16 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I have always said that Remain had the edge on short term economics. There was never any doubt. He's arguing a completely void point if he doesn't engage with what happens beyond the next couple of years (i.e. what every single Brexit voter actually voted for). You have also made sll sorts of erroneous claims about inflation and it not really mattering as well as underplaying 'a couple of years' of economic turmoil. And how can you make claims about 'every single Brexit voter'? What erroneous claim did I make about inflation...?
My 6% inflation is PV'ed and is based purely off price of goods in constant dollars ( or equivalent pegged asian currencies such as HKD and renmibi ). So your iPhone or LG TV will price will go up mechanically by that amount. In-sourcing, if economically viable at all - a big if, will take 3 to 5 years.
So yes Virginia 2% * 3 = 6%.
As per comparing inflation from a hard devaluation, which is an inflationary shock, with the deflationary shock of the last twenty years... I'll be nice and offer you a pass on this one :p
|
On October 27 2016 07:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times: Actually, you haven't even begun to. And since in this cost-benefit analysis we both agree there are costs - and certainly some quantifiable ones, I'd like to hear about the benefits other than ad hominems, four-letter expletives, or 'my family'.
But why rerun the referendum now if you didn't acknowledge any of the arguments the first time around? The positives are, in a nutshell, the restoration of the democratic process and national sovereignty. For context, things that people have willingly given their lives for since time immemorial.
By extension that includes the ability to address inequality and infrastructural strain driven by free movement, the ability to negotiate trade deals that actually suit the specifics of our economy, the ability to repeal EU laws, etc. It also means the unshackling of our economy from the ageing and increasingly protectionist economy of the EU, and the impending disaster that is the euro.
On October 27 2016 07:16 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:06 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:03 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post. I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please. You're not. You're filling the thread with spam. If you read the rest of the post you would know that I responded specifically to a number of his points. Those I did not respond to I probably agreed with, even if I felt he overstated their relevance. I'm not even doing this on purpose... GSK.L 24 Jun in $ : 1482p * 1.50 = 2223 GSK.L spot in $ : 1626p * 1.22 = 1984 1984/2223 - 1 = -10.8% Just perfectly in line with my earlier FTSE calc. This means worlwide investors agree that GSK as an international company with cash-flows denominated in all currencies is now worth more than 10% less than before Brexit. Are you gonna continue shooting yourself in the foot ? Keep the examples coming.
You're actually ridiculous. Evidently you know a thing or two about economics, so ACKNOWLEDGE the fundamental facts. They trade in STERLING. Inflation is currently at 1 PERCENT. Their profits have increased by FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT.
1 PERCENT inflation does not offset FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT increase in profits.
Their value in dollars is NOT RELEVANT.
This is the entire point I was making to begin with. A twenty percent devaluation in sterling does NOT equate to a twenty percent devaluation in British businesses/assets or a twenty percent rise in inflation. We did not toss twenty percent of our possessions into the sea. You only need a very basic understanding of floating exchange rates to understand this.
|
On October 27 2016 05:59 bardtown wrote:
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.
Actually, remember LSE + Amber Rudd ?
www.dailymail.co.uk
Of course we agree this is nonsensical, probably not for the same reason. It's at least absurd given the amounts of bi-national faculty staff. Besides, don't be arrogant and assume European top drawer will even apply to come and study here from now on. Talent with options doesn't have to take the anti-foreigner rhethoric if they go to Mannheim, Polytechnique or Pompeu de Fabra instead. They even get the sunny weather for free in some instances ;p
|
The anti-foreigner rhetoric is blown out of all proportion by Remain supporters who want to vilify their opposition, unfortunately. Ironically they are the ones who will scare foreign talent away. Britain remains one of the most tolerant countries in the world.
|
On October 27 2016 07:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times: Actually, you haven't even begun to. And since in this cost-benefit analysis we both agree there are costs - and certainly some quantifiable ones, I'd like to hear about the benefits other than ad hominems, four-letter expletives, or 'my family'. But why rerun the referendum now if you didn't acknowledge any of the arguments the first time around? The positives are, in a nutshell, the restoration of the democratic process and national sovereignty. For context, things that people have willingly given their lives for since time immemorial. By extension that includes the ability to address inequality and infrastructural strain driven by free movement, the ability to negotiate trade deals that actually suit the specifics of our economy, the ability to repeal EU laws, etc. It also means the unshackling of our economy from the ageing and increasingly protectionist economy of the EU, and the impending disaster that is the euro.
I did, and I think you'll find unsurprisingly enough, that I voted in. Some of my family died on D-Day to protect a certain view of a united Europe and of freedom. You know, a concept people gave their life willingly for it since time immemorial.
You finally start making some detailed points. In fairness only the final sentence seems like a step up to me - as addressing inequality and infrastructure spending certainly was possible before ( zero interest from Cameron though), and if anything, the impending shock and the associated emergency economic policies will rather freeze the movement of money - think zero rates for longer - than encourage it, along with social mobility.
I fail to see how our economy was shackled before. The decoupling was apparent in that it was effectively outperforming, probably as a result of getting an endless supply of Europe's best and brightest at no particular educational and benefit cost, at least in London. Of course our opinion might vary based on our circumstances. Now we'll have to make do without a part of that talent pool, and we're in a weaker position than ever to negotiate trade deals say with China, given we can't dangle the carrot of passporting into the single market. Why is the Kingdom United, if union's such a bad concept ? ( Ask Scotland, maybe ? ).
More 'unshackling' : www.slate.com
|
On October 27 2016 07:39 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:24 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times: Actually, you haven't even begun to. And since in this cost-benefit analysis we both agree there are costs - and certainly some quantifiable ones, I'd like to hear about the benefits other than ad hominems, four-letter expletives, or 'my family'. But why rerun the referendum now if you didn't acknowledge any of the arguments the first time around? The positives are, in a nutshell, the restoration of the democratic process and national sovereignty. For context, things that people have willingly given their lives for since time immemorial. By extension that includes the ability to address inequality and infrastructural strain driven by free movement, the ability to negotiate trade deals that actually suit the specifics of our economy, the ability to repeal EU laws, etc. It also means the unshackling of our economy from the ageing and increasingly protectionist economy of the EU, and the impending disaster that is the euro. I did, and I think you'll find unsurprisingly enough, that I voted in. Some of my family died on D-Day to protect a certain view of a united Europe and of freedom. You know, a concept people gave their life willingly for it since time immemorial. You finally start making some detailed points. In fairness only the final sentence seems like a step up to me - as addressing inequality and infrastructure spending certainly was possible before ( zero interest from Cameron though), and if anything, the impending shock and the associated emergency economic policies will rather freeze the movement of money - think zero rates for longer - than encourage it, along with social mobility. I fail to see how our economy was shackled before. The decoupling was apparent in that it was effectively outperforming, probably as a result of getting an endless supply of Europe's best and brightest at no particular educational and benefit cost, at least in London. Of course our opinion might vary based on our circumstances. Now we'll have to make do without a part of that talent pool, and we're in a weaker position than ever to negotiate trade deals say with China, given we can't dangle the carrot of passporting into the single market. Why is the Kingdom United, if union's such a bad concept ? ( Ask Scotland, maybe ? ). More 'unshackling' : www.slate.com
I don't see freedom when I look at the EU. Maybe that's the fundamental difference in our perspectives. I see a corrupt and undemocratic system that is barely functional, let alone inspirational.
You really can't tackle inequality when migrants are willing to work in worse conditions for less pay and there is no incentive for businesses not to abuse that. Real wages for poor Brits have been tumbling.
I, for one, embrace a future of innovative marmalades. I actually think that's hilarious. That would be a better charicature of Brexiteers if you didn't want to deter foreign talent. They're people who really want to show the world just how great British jam can be.
|
On October 27 2016 07:24 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. Completely coincidentally (I had not seen this before mentioning GSK), in tomorrow's Times: Actually, you haven't even begun to. And since in this cost-benefit analysis we both agree there are costs - and certainly some quantifiable ones, I'd like to hear about the benefits other than ad hominems, four-letter expletives, or 'my family'. But why rerun the referendum now if you didn't acknowledge any of the arguments the first time around? The positives are, in a nutshell, the restoration of the democratic process and national sovereignty. For context, things that people have willingly given their lives for since time immemorial. By extension that includes the ability to address inequality and infrastructural strain driven by free movement, the ability to negotiate trade deals that actually suit the specifics of our economy, the ability to repeal EU laws, etc. It also means the unshackling of our economy from the ageing and increasingly protectionist economy of the EU, and the impending disaster that is the euro. Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:16 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:06 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:03 Deleuze wrote:On October 27 2016 07:00 bardtown wrote:
I already have. Now, shut up and let the people who actually have something to say talk. You dismissed them out of hand in the first sentence of your post. I am trying to hold you to the standards that would enable you to convince others. Engage in some critical thinking, please. You're not. You're filling the thread with spam. If you read the rest of the post you would know that I responded specifically to a number of his points. Those I did not respond to I probably agreed with, even if I felt he overstated their relevance. I'm not even doing this on purpose... GSK.L 24 Jun in $ : 1482p * 1.50 = 2223 GSK.L spot in $ : 1626p * 1.22 = 1984 1984/2223 - 1 = -10.8% Just perfectly in line with my earlier FTSE calc. This means worlwide investors agree that GSK as an international company with cash-flows denominated in all currencies is now worth more than 10% less than before Brexit. Are you gonna continue shooting yourself in the foot ? Keep the examples coming. You're actually ridiculous. Evidently you know a thing or two about economics, so ACKNOWLEDGE the fundamental facts. They trade in STERLING. Inflation is currently at 1 PERCENT. Their profits have increased by FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT. 1 PERCENT inflation does not offset FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT increase in profits. Their value is dollars is NOT RELEVANT. This is the entire point I was making to begin with. A twenty percent devaluation in sterling does NOT equate to a twenty percent devaluation in British businesses/assets or a twenty percent rise in inflation. We did not toss twenty percent of our possessions into the sea. You only need a very basic understanding of floating exchange rates to understand this.
FTSE 100 companies get the vast majority of their revenue from outside the British Isles. Aka, you can proxy earnings in dollars. It's so irrelevant Bloomberg writes entire articles about it.
'One thing these indexes do have in common is that their shares are denominated in pounds — and as the pound's value plummets, you need more of those weaker pounds to buy a share in a company, all else being equal.
This is the FTSE 250's value measured in dollars. A 13 percent drop. While, accounting for the exchange rate, even the FTSE 100 is worth less than it was before. That means if you'd bought into a fund that tracks U.K. stocks on the 23rd you'd have less money now, when you go to change those gains back into your home currency (or as a Brit, when you try to travel or invest abroad).'
Saying the move in the currency doesn't need to be negated is like weighing yourself in double-kilos and declaring you've lost weight.
But since we're interested in ridiculousness and local currency, allow me to introduce to you the venezuelian stock market :
www.zerohedge.com
Got it ?
...
|
On October 27 2016 07:47 bardtown wrote:
I, for one, embrace a future of innovative marmalades. I actually think that's hilarious. That would be a better charicature of Brexiteers if you didn't want to deter foreign talent. They're people who really want to show the world just how great British jam can be.
I was trying to sweeten the conversation a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
