|
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 07:47 bardtown wrote:
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 think you're hitting the nail on the head here. Even if we soberly say that migration is a net economic 0 for the UK ( I'd argue it's a net positive, but heh), we can schematically segment into low-skilled foreigners - alledgedly driving labor costs down and a drain on public finances - alledgedly - and high skilled, less numerous, growth-promoting, tax-paying foreigners.
Political expediency then dictates a viable electoral strategy is to oppose the British people dealing with both foreigner categories and reap ( really, abuse ) the benefits of the imbalance in their numbers.
No ?
|
On October 27 2016 07:55 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: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvudZb1WYAAZdck.jpg:large) 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: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.comGot it ? ...
With no devaluation:
100
With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation:
147 x 0.8 = 117.6
That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets.
Also, given that their expenditure is almost exclusively in GBP, real profits are much closer to the sterling figure than the dollar figure.
Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers.
On October 27 2016 08:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:47 bardtown wrote:
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 think you're hitting the nail on the head here. Even if we soberly say that migration is a net economic 0 for the UK ( I'd argue it's a net positive, but heh), we can schematically segment into low-skilled foreigners - alledgedly driving labor costs down and a drain on public finances - alledgedly - and high skilled, less numerous, growth-promoting, tax-paying foreigners. Political expediency then dictates a viable electoral strategy is to oppose the British people dealing with both foreigner categories and reap ( really, abuse ) the benefits of the imbalance in their numbers. No ?
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. As far as net benefit goes, I don't really care if it provides a net benefit to the UK economy if the negative effects are focused on the poorest, which they are.
|
On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers.
As long as I can buy it in dollars :p
We're finally getting somewhere, it only took three pages to get to my first point. Yes, you are correct in those lines. So now generalizing to the whole UK economy. That +17.6% quantity for single company GSK$ - not priced in as of yet btw - is priced in by the market at -11%$ for FTSE$. The whole market - millions of participants - assesses cash flows and FX and finds that after currency translation, the value of profit shrinkage (quantity ) *for the whole UK economy* is larger than the one of currency debasement, by 11%. This means the market thinks the UK economy is in fact now 11% smaller. Yay.
|
On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Also, given that their expenditure is almost exclusively in GBP, real profits are much closer to the sterling figure than the dollar figure. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers. Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:47 bardtown wrote:
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 think you're hitting the nail on the head here. Even if we soberly say that migration is a net economic 0 for the UK ( I'd argue it's a net positive, but heh), we can schematically segment into low-skilled foreigners - alledgedly driving labor costs down and a drain on public finances - alledgedly - and high skilled, less numerous, growth-promoting, tax-paying foreigners. Political expediency then dictates a viable electoral strategy is to oppose the British people dealing with both foreigner categories and reap ( really, abuse ) the benefits of the imbalance in their numbers. No ? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. As far as net benefit goes, I don't really care if it provides a net benefit to the UK economy if the negative effects are focused on the poorest, which they are.
So the first thing you did was vote for a shock-creating policy that 1.devalued the currency, mechanically translating into customer price inflation and 2. prompted the Bank of England in reaction to resume quantitative easing, a policy notorious for attempting to reflate asset prices, ergo making the rich richer.
Well done. O tempora, o mores.
|
On October 27 2016 08:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers. As long as I can buy it in dollars :p We're finally getting somewhere, it only took three pages to get to my first point. Yes, you are correct in those lines. So now generalizing to the whole UK economy. That +17.6% quantity for single company GSK$ - not priced in as of yet btw - is priced in by the market at -11%$ for FTSE$. The whole market - millions of participants - assesses cash flows and FX and finds that after currency translation, the value of profit shrinkage (quantity ) *for the whole UK economy* is larger than the one of currency debasement, by 11%. This means the market thinks the UK economy is in fact now 11% smaller. Yay.
To international markets, yes. But the vast majority of transactions are internal, hence the difference between the decrease in international valuation and domestic inflation, which is the figure that actually indicates the change in what our money buys.
On October 27 2016 08:33 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Also, given that their expenditure is almost exclusively in GBP, real profits are much closer to the sterling figure than the dollar figure. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers. On October 27 2016 08:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 07:47 bardtown wrote:
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 think you're hitting the nail on the head here. Even if we soberly say that migration is a net economic 0 for the UK ( I'd argue it's a net positive, but heh), we can schematically segment into low-skilled foreigners - alledgedly driving labor costs down and a drain on public finances - alledgedly - and high skilled, less numerous, growth-promoting, tax-paying foreigners. Political expediency then dictates a viable electoral strategy is to oppose the British people dealing with both foreigner categories and reap ( really, abuse ) the benefits of the imbalance in their numbers. No ? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. As far as net benefit goes, I don't really care if it provides a net benefit to the UK economy if the negative effects are focused on the poorest, which they are. So the first thing you did was vote for a shock-creating policy that 1.devalued the currency, mechanically translating into customer price inflation and 2. prompted the Bank of England in reaction to resume quantitative easing, a policy notorious for attempting to reflate asset prices, ergo making the rich richer. Well done. O tempora, o mores.
Again, my motivation was not to affect the economic minutiae of the next couple of years. The BoE is just trying to mitigate the immediate effects of the Brexit shock - that wasn't what I voted for, it was something that I was willing to endure in order to accomplish what I did vote for, which will be some time coming.
|
On October 27 2016 08:35 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers. As long as I can buy it in dollars :p We're finally getting somewhere, it only took three pages to get to my first point. Yes, you are correct in those lines. So now generalizing to the whole UK economy. That +17.6% quantity for single company GSK$ - not priced in as of yet btw - is priced in by the market at -11%$ for FTSE$. The whole market - millions of participants - assesses cash flows and FX and finds that after currency translation, the value of profit shrinkage (quantity ) *for the whole UK economy* is larger than the one of currency debasement, by 11%. This means the market thinks the UK economy is in fact now 11% smaller. Yay. To international markets, yes. But the vast majority of transactions are internal, hence the difference between the decrease in international valuation and domestic inflation, which is the figure that actually indicates the change in what our money buys.
Not the vast majority. About 60-70%. The remaining 30%-40% are imports. So when the currency moves by -20% actual--30% projected, you expect the total passthrough after currency hedges expire to be the product, ie, between 6% and 10%. That's by how much prices will increase for everyone in the next few years. And sadly, prices moving parallel up affects the poor the most.
|
On October 27 2016 08:35 bardtown wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. As far as net benefit goes, I don't really care if it provides a net benefit to the UK economy if the negative effects are focused on the poorest, which they are.
So the first thing you did was vote for a shock-creating policy that 1.devalued the currency, mechanically translating into customer price inflation and 2. prompted the Bank of England in reaction to resume quantitative easing, a policy notorious for attempting to reflate asset prices, ergo making the rich richer.
Well done. O tempora, o mores.
Again, my motivation was not to affect the economic minutiae of the next couple of years. The BoE is just trying to mitigate the immediate effects of the Brexit shock - that wasn't what I voted for, it was something that I was willing to endure in order to accomplish what I did vote for, which will be some time coming.
It's okay. I understand. We all eff up sometimes. We have a moral responsibility to own it and quantify the costs. I just wanted to let you know.
( That, by the way, was only negative effect number 1. There are more, like the fact taxes will increase to finance the current account deficit. Refer to my earlier post. )
|
On October 27 2016 08:40 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:35 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 08:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 08:19 bardtown wrote:On October 27 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote: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. 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.comGot it ? ... With no devaluation: 100 With 47% profit increase and 20% devaluation: 147 x 0.8 = 117.6 That's profit in dollars, not just in GBP, no? Owning assets in GBP reduces share price but not profits, which is what actually matters unless they plan on selling all their assets. Anyway, economics is the preserve of Remainers. Jam is the preserve of Brexiteers. As long as I can buy it in dollars :p We're finally getting somewhere, it only took three pages to get to my first point. Yes, you are correct in those lines. So now generalizing to the whole UK economy. That +17.6% quantity for single company GSK$ - not priced in as of yet btw - is priced in by the market at -11%$ for FTSE$. The whole market - millions of participants - assesses cash flows and FX and finds that after currency translation, the value of profit shrinkage (quantity ) *for the whole UK economy* is larger than the one of currency debasement, by 11%. This means the market thinks the UK economy is in fact now 11% smaller. Yay. To international markets, yes. But the vast majority of transactions are internal, hence the difference between the decrease in international valuation and domestic inflation, which is the figure that actually indicates the change in what our money buys. Not the vast majority. About 60-70%. The remaining 30%-40% are imports. So when the currency moves by -20% actual--30% projected, you expect the total passthrough after currency hedges expire to be the product, ie, between 6% and 10%. That's by how much prices will increase for everyone in the next few years. And sadly, prices moving parallel up affects the poor the most.
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
On October 27 2016 08:48 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:35 bardtown wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. As far as net benefit goes, I don't really care if it provides a net benefit to the UK economy if the negative effects are focused on the poorest, which they are.
So the first thing you did was vote for a shock-creating policy that 1.devalued the currency, mechanically translating into customer price inflation and 2. prompted the Bank of England in reaction to resume quantitative easing, a policy notorious for attempting to reflate asset prices, ergo making the rich richer.
Well done. O tempora, o mores.
Show nested quote +
Again, my motivation was not to affect the economic minutiae of the next couple of years. The BoE is just trying to mitigate the immediate effects of the Brexit shock - that wasn't what I voted for, it was something that I was willing to endure in order to accomplish what I did vote for, which will be some time coming.
It's okay. I understand. We all eff up sometimes. We have a moral responsibility to own it and quantify the costs. I just wanted to let you know. ( That, by the way, was only negative effect number 1. There are more, like the fact taxes will increase to finance the current account deficit. Refer to my earlier post. )
We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it  .
|
On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately.
We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it .
Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one.
|
On October 27 2016 09:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately. Show nested quote +We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it . Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one.
Fair enough. I don't think your 22% figure is using the same start point as their 9% figure, though. I will await their next report to see how it compares.
That's not really fair; my jam is much more innovative. But fine, deal.
|
On October 27 2016 09:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately. Show nested quote +We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it . Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one.
I'm just fully reading that report now and sadly enough :
-page 18 'The equity prices of UK domestically focused companies — those for which at least 70% of revenue is
earned in the United Kingdom — were, however, 9% below their pre-referendum level (Chart 1.7). ' - compare with my 10-11% down estimate
- page 22 ' The significant depreciation of the sterling exchange rate (Section 1.1), however, means that
annual sterling UK import price inflation is projected to reach around 6% in 2017 Q1 (Section 4).' - compare to my 6-10% range, again knowing sterling is down since.
I hope we can pay the electricity bill to post in a few years' time.
|
On October 27 2016 09:10 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 09:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately. We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it . Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one. Fair enough. I don't think your 22% figure is using the same start point as their 9% figure, though. I will await their next report to see how it compares. That's not really fair; my jam is much more innovative. But fine, deal.
Yep. We'll need to wait till November to see the damage.
|
On October 27 2016 09:13 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 09:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately. We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it . Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one. I'm just fully reading that report now and sadly enough : -page 18 'The equity prices of UK domestically focused companies — those for which at least 70% of revenue is earned in the United Kingdom — were, however, 9% below their pre-referendum level (Chart 1.7). ' - compare with my 10-11% down estimate - page 22 ' The significant depreciation of the sterling exchange rate (Section 1.1), however, means that annual sterling UK import price inflation is projected to reach around 6% in 2017 Q1 (Section 4).' - compare to my 6-10% range, again knowing sterling is down since. I hope we can pay the electricity bill to post in a few years' time.
These figures aren't exactly surprising. Actually, if anything I don't understand how import price inflation stays so low.
Anyway, as a wise man once told me: when life gives you lemons, make innovative lemon curd.
To summarise because I'm going to bed. I acknowledge these costs. I was initially disputing the guy saying we were 20% poorer when inflation is currently at 1%. Also, my point about devaluation helping domestic exporters and producers (who are often at the bottom of the food chain) stands. There may also be some coincidental benefit from general restructuring of our economy towards a healthier balance of manufacturing/services. Whether inflation hits 2.5% or 5%, I personally would shoulder that cost for the principles I voted on (democracy, sovereignty) even if there was no economic payout at the end of the tunnel. But I do think there will be a payout for the poor in regaining control of free movement and for the nation in having the ability to refocus our trade globally, avoiding too integral connections to the euro, etc.
|
On October 27 2016 09:17 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 09:13 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 09:04 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On October 27 2016 08:49 bardtown wrote:
Again, you're very far off BoE projections of ~2.5% which essentially represents a pause in improvement of living standards, hopefully offset for the poorest by the increase in the minimum wage.
If you're referring to their August inflation report, it's stale and off a 9% decline in Sterling. Markets have moved from $1.32+ to $1.21 since. As per their own words, 'The sterling ERI has fallen by 9% since the referendum on 23 June'. ( page 16, www.bankofengland.co.uk ). Surprise, if you apply a 30% imports rate to a 9% fall, you get roughly 3% and it lines up. Things are worse now that 9% has turned into 22% unfortunately. We won't know who fucked up for some years. Meet me back here then and if I was wrong I'll own up to it . Fair enough, a box of jam to the 'winner', assuming there is one. I'm just fully reading that report now and sadly enough : -page 18 'The equity prices of UK domestically focused companies — those for which at least 70% of revenue is earned in the United Kingdom — were, however, 9% below their pre-referendum level (Chart 1.7). ' - compare with my 10-11% down estimate - page 22 ' The significant depreciation of the sterling exchange rate (Section 1.1), however, means that annual sterling UK import price inflation is projected to reach around 6% in 2017 Q1 (Section 4).' - compare to my 6-10% range, again knowing sterling is down since. I hope we can pay the electricity bill to post in a few years' time. These figures aren't exactly surprising. Actually, if anything I don't understand how import price inflation stays so low. Anyway, as a wise man once told me: when life gives you lemons, make innovative lemon curd. To summarise because I'm going to bed. I acknowledge these costs. I was initially disputing the guy saying we were 20% poorer when inflation is currently at 1%. Also, my point about devaluation helping domestic exporters and producers (who are often at the bottom of the food chain) stands. There may also be some coincidental benefit from general restructuring of our economy towards a healthier balance of manufacturing/services. Whether inflation hits 2.5% or 5%, I personally would shoulder that cost for the principles I voted on (democracy, sovereignty) even if there was no economic payout at the end of the tunnel. But I do think there will be a payout for the poor in regaining control of free movement and for the nation in having the ability to refocus our trade globally, avoiding too integral connections to the euro, etc.
I'm glad we're coming to a reasonable mutual understanding of the sheer scale of the costs associated with the Brexit process, and that you're now coming to a more nuanced side of things. Off to bed as well.
|
Q3 growth of 0.5%, significantly exceeding expectations that have already twice been upgraded since the vote. Almost as though currency devaluation has helped to provide, in the IMF's own words, a 'soft landing'.
Not denying that Brexiteers took a cavalier approach to the economic risks, but the experts you deferred to are already off by 0.6%, and their pre-referendum predictions will only get further off the mark as time goes on. We should be in a technical recession by Q4, by their judgement. In fact, as it turns out, growth could be upgraded to 2%.
Doesn't bode well for trust in these institutions which many people felt were politically motivated in favour of the status quo.
Also, regarding government action to mitigate damages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37787890
This is a very significant example, and one which caused a lot of concern.
Where Remainers see a 'chaotic breakfast', we Brexiteers see innovative jams.
|
Decent analysis and stats in Guardian comment section
- The UK population increased 8.6% between 2004 and 2015. In just that short time, the population increased by the same percentage as between 1967 and 2004;
- In just 2015, the UK population increased by as much as it did between 1972 and 1985;
- The UK population grew by an average of 0.75% annually between 2005 and 2015. By comparison, in the 70s, 80s and 90s, the mean annual growth rate was 0.19%.
- During 1977-81 and 1962-66, net migration was actually negative - more emigration from than immigration to the UK. Overall, between 1997 and 2012, rates of net migration were ten-times that of between 1960 and 1997;
But why is immigration to the UK so high, Omar? Well, because of EU free movement rules, obviously. But also, get this: the poorest US state (Mississippi) is 44% as wealthy as the richest (Alaska) - so the US works well as a federation. But Poland is 29% as wealthy as the UK, Romania 21% and Bulgaria 16%. That doesn't work well. Had the EU remained in just northern and western Europe, I'm absolutely convinced we'd still be in the EU today.
|
Nissan to build Qashqai and X-Trail models at Sunderland.
Another nail in the coffin for the project fear remainiacs.All bluster.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/27/nissan-to-make-new-qashqai-and-x-trail-models-in-britain#comments
Nissan will build the next Qashqai and X-Trail models at its Sunderland factory, safeguarding more than 7,000 jobs, in the first major investment decision in the car industry since the Brexit vote.
The prime minister hailed the decision as a vote of confidence in Britain. “It is a recognition that the government is committed to creating and supporting the right conditions for the automotive industry so it continues to grow – now and in the future,” said Theresa May.
The announcement came as new figures showed the economy fared far better than expected in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote. In the first official verdict on how the economy has performed since Britain voted to leave the European Union, the Office for National Statistics said GDP grew by 0.5% in the third quarter. This was down from 0.7% in the previous three months but well ahead of City forecasts of 0.3%.
Nissan reported an 11% rise in global production in September from a year ago to 485,154 cars – a record for the month. In the UK, it ramped up production by 6.6% to 50,133 cars, another record.
|
|
|
Name a country with a car industry where the government doesn't support the car industry.
It's easy to argue the government supports the financial sector as well considering they spent hundreds of billions of pounds bailing them out during the GFC.This is peanuts in comparison.
Sunderland plant production up 6.6% in a year, 3Q GDP 0.5% actual where experts had predicted 0.6% in the event of a remain vote.Project fear? Hyperbole.
|
On October 27 2016 18:43 bardtown wrote:Q3 growth of 0.5%, significantly exceeding expectations that have already twice been upgraded since the vote. Almost as though currency devaluation has helped to provide, in the IMF's own words, a 'soft landing'. Not denying that Brexiteers took a cavalier approach to the economic risks, but the experts you deferred to are already off by 0.6%, and their pre-referendum predictions will only get further off the mark as time goes on. We should be in a technical recession by Q4, by their judgement. In fact, as it turns out, growth could be upgraded to 2%. Doesn't bode well for trust in these institutions which many people felt were politically motivated in favour of the status quo. Also, regarding government action to mitigate damages: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37787890This is a very significant example, and one which caused a lot of concern. https://twitter.com/Sean__Clare/status/791586789609836544Where Remainers see a 'chaotic breakfast', we Brexiteers see innovative jams.
Definitely a positive data point, but how much of that's the rate cut though ? You'd expect a tiny - and this is tiny - reaction after central bank jolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
