Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

Theresa May embarassed into second visit to Grenfell. Spoke with emergency personnel on Thursday and was roundly criticised for keeping away from the victims.

She's way above her pay grade. She just can't cut it.

Interesting...

Top girl: Our Queen is there

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40298473

 

[mike.]

For one thing, you're an island. For another, the Spitfire was better than what the Germans had to offer.

I was referring more to the fact that we used to be world leaders in industry and technology well before the precious Union dumped its rules and regulations on us. How would that go down in the USA ? Bunch of unelected Mexicans controlling you from a building in Mexico City.

 

[Atilla]

I was referring more to the fact that we used to be world leaders in industry and technology well before the precious Union dumped its rules and regulations on us. How would that go down in the USA ? Bunch of unelected Mexicans controlling you from a building in Mexico City.

Evidence please?

On the contrary UK joined because we were falling behind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1945_to_2001

As negative factors coalesced during the 1960s, the slogan used by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan "(most of) our people have never had it so good" seemed increasingly hollow.

The Conservative Government presided over a ‘stop-go’ economy as it tried to prevent inflation spiralling out of control without snuffing out economic growth. Growth continued to struggle, at about only half the rate of that of Germany or France at the same time.

However, industry had remained strong in nearly 20 years following the end of the war, and extensive housebuilding and construction of new commercial developments and public buildings also helped unemployment stay low throughout this time.

In comparing economic prosperity (using gross national product per person), the British record was one of steady downward slippage from seventh place in the world in 1950, to 12th in 1965, to 20th in 1975. Labour politician Richard Crossman, after visiting prosperous Canada, returned to England with a:

..

Economists provided four overlapping explanations. The "early start" theory said that Britain's rivals were doing so well because they were still moving large numbers of farm workers into more lucrative employment, which Britain had done in the 19th century.

A second theory emphasized the "rejuvenation by defeat," whereby Germany and Japan had been forced to reequip, rethink and restructure their economic basic.

The third approach emphasized the drag of "Imperial distractions", saying that responsibilities to its large empire handicapped the home economy, especially through defense spending, and economic aid.

Finally, the theory of "institutional failure" stressed the negative roles of discontinuity, unpredictability, and class envy. The last theory blamed trade unions, public schools, and universities perpetuating an elitist anti-industrial attitude.[129]

 

[dbphoenix]

I was referring more to the fact that we used to be world leaders in industry and technology well before the precious Union dumped its rules and regulations on us. How would that go down in the USA ? Bunch of unelected Mexicans controlling you from a building in Mexico City.

The change in your status had less to do with the EU and more to do with WW1. And you had not yet recovered from that when WW2 began. And recovery from WW2 was not quick and easy. Rationing didn't end until 1954. As for being world leaders in technology, you didn't even have a national electrical grid until the 30s.

GB pretty much ran the world for 150 years, but WW1 drew the curtain on that. There were many reasons why Britain couldn't hold it together after the War, but the spirit of the people didn't diminish, as evidenced by their ability to withstand the German onslaught, particularly through the blitz.

For anyone to suggest that Britain would have been better off without the EU is short-sighted. Again, let history teach the lesson.

 

[tomorton]

Nice one DB.

Its hard to believe we would have had a stronger economy outside the EU. From 1992 to the global financial crisis we experienced one of the highest economic growth rates of major developed economies and certainly the strongest of any European nation.

Could we have been better off outside the EU?
It seems hard to believe.

Will we become better off than where we are now outside the EU?
It's going to take about 20 years to be halfway sure of that.

 

[barjon]

Thanks Atilla, Absolutely great information.

This is the sort of information I had assumed would be touted about in the referendum campaign.

Right from the beginning I had made up my mind not to vote in the referendum, as I didn't feel qualified to make a decision. I say this as someone who takes an interest in such things. As time went on I thought there will be some serious fact based debates coming soon, which never did.. Then at the very last minuet after hearing this guy full of hot air telling me why he voted, it dawned on me,there were lots of people prepared to vote who hadn't properly looked into it at all. So I made a last minuet dash to the polling station to yin his yang.

That's the saddest part. The whole thing was argued with yah-boo politics (by both sides) with facts virtually non-existent. Plenty of hot air opinions though. What way to decide the country's future

 

[Atilla]

fftopic: Please see link fftopic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-d60acebe-2076-4bab-90b4-0e9a5f62ab12


Hey guys, I'd thought I just post this very enlightening link to highlight what often occurs in meetings when the Exec comes out with brilliant idea which no one has thought about to any degree but the idea is just great. This is from the strategic big thinkers who run the show. So people have to jump to what they say with enthusiasm because nobody likes party poopers and spoilers.

There are then the tactical teams who consider, how much it may cost, what resources are likely over what period of time. Is it feasible ladiladilaaa.

There are then the operational teams who deliver the vision. These are the people who actually do the grunt work. I need to dig a whole into that piece of rock on the edge of that cliff. :whistling

Now really think about this! That's just for building a wall. Simple wall right?

Now think about Brexit? Great idea :idea:

Then think about doing it again but this time a new deal with the people you've just left.

Then think about replacing trade deals bilaterally - not like once with a group or a body but one to one with many other countries covering 000s of goods and services.

Think of the time cost issues and questions and challenges you'll meet along the way. I don't think we've even began to scratch the surface of the challenges just yet.

Think aobut Davies saying we haven't done any quantification because we haven't been able to fully list all the issues and considerations just yet.

Then think about Michael Gove in a parliamentary committee meeting asking the question can't we just simply leave?

Much like Trump asking why don't we just simply build a wall.


Just a wall.

 

[mike.]

You have far to much spare time.


Did you watch the interview I posted on the what your watching thread ? Can't remember if I mentioned it to you. Dementia kicking in.

 

[Atilla]

You have far to much spare time.


Did you watch the interview I posted on the what your watching thread ? Can't remember if I mentioned it to you. Dementia kicking in.

LOL - Don't remember. You must be right

 

[seekingTruth16]

I have no idea how any government can embark on a path such as this without doing the background checks and cost benefit analysis of the what ifs. Essentially to produce a white paper (slightly longer than 12 pages or 12 points). Stupid moo TM and Davies thinks that's sufficient.

I'd be laughing my AO if it wasn't so tragically sad.

These two are the worst intollerably stuffy POSs whom I find very difficult listening to.

Utter fooking SHs imo but you know they go on TV talking tripe and people believe them.

If you recall, both these snots made the assertions we can import food cheaper from elsewhere? As it is dawning on the British people;

1. Fall in pound is raising import prices
2. Hard Brexit can take the pound even lower to 1.10s
3. Inflationary pressures now leading BoE to consider raising rates
4. Which will hit peoples mortgages and further reduce disposable incomes
5. Coupled with export of jobs people will begin to see what a load of b0ll0cks these two were talking about.
6. Not to forget food standards much lower outside of UK & EU
7. Perishable food stuff not suitable for long distances thus shorter shelf life on sale


As that article shows the very areas up North will suffer probably the bigger loss of jobs back to Europe.

Only now are we discovering the very expert lady who is to lead negotiates can't even be bothered to talk to her cabinet or take calls from other MPs. Strong lady has hired the same ******s she rubbished and sacked like Gove. Remember what she said about Boris.

Beggars belief. As you can see words fail me.


I do believe this is a great country and Parliament must always be the place where debate and laws should originate from. Not with press gangs out on the street.

Some of what you say is fine. But the bold...rates should be raised. They should have been raised some time ago. This distorting of rates will cause huge damage in the long term and has created more than one bubble. The sooner we get back to sensible rates the better. It is 8 years+ of low rates.

 

[Atilla]

Some of what you say is fine. But the bold...rates should be raised. They should have been raised some time ago. This distorting of rates will cause huge damage in the long term and has created more than one bubble. The sooner we get back to sensible rates the better. It is 8 years+ of low rates.

I would agree to some extent but do not believe economy is strong enough to sustain a rate rise.

One has to look at where the inflationary pressure is originating from.

Rate rise will really hit JAMs with mortgages. We are liable to see re-run of Ninja's losing homes as in US.

So rise in inflation, rise in mortgages and fall in incomes as jobs losses mount up. Perfect storm for a big melt down thanks to Brexiters when rest of World just recovering.


The other side of the coin is we tolerate recession and stave off demand side by using fiscal policy. This might seem like a nightmare to Tories but it is the least destructive way to support the UK through these painful days.

UK needs a fairer distribution of income as what we have now is not sustainable. We should be more like Europe not America imo.


Either way tough decision but I see Corbyn as less of a threat to national interest right now than blue Tories who are ignorant to what they see out of some allegiance to a party who is opaque and in total split much like the nation.

 

[seekingTruth16]

I would agree to some extent but do not believe economy is strong enough to sustain a rate rise.

One has to look at where the inflationary pressure is originating from.

Rate rise will really hit JAMs with mortgages. We are liable to see re-run of Ninja's losing homes as in US.

So rise in inflation, rise in mortgages and fall in incomes as jobs losses mount up. Perfect storm for a big melt down thanks to Brexiters when rest of World just recovering.


The other side of the coin is we tolerate recession and stave off demand side by using fiscal policy. This might seem like a nightmare to Tories but it is the least destructive way to support the UK through these painful days.

UK needs a fairer distribution of income as what we have now is not sustainable. We should be more like Europe not America imo.


Either way tough decision but I see Corbyn as less of a threat to national interest right now than blue Tories who are ignorant to what they see out of some allegiance to a party who is opaque and in total split much like the nation.

In this day and age, a Just About Managing should not even be considering a mortgage, never mind have one. Low interest rates have led to people taking out massive mortgages which they couldn't really afford if rates were 'normal'. High earners are not even getting mortgages in London anymore, because the market is crazy. low interest rates have caused this (among other things). And yes some will suffer when rates rise, but you shouldn't have left them so low for so long,. That's the real problem.

Fairer distribution of income sounds good. But does it tend to mean taxing more on those who produce and are more skilled? Usually, and I can't support that.

Tax wealth, not earnings.

 

[dbphoenix]

Fairer distribution of income sounds good. But does it tend to mean taxing more on those who produce and are more skilled? Usually, and I can't support that.

It can. But it can also mean fairness in wages. When people have to make a choice between food and shelter, either costs are too high or wages are too low. Usually both.

 

[Splitlink]

It can. But it can also mean fairness in wages. When people have to make a choice between food and shelter, either costs are too high or wages are too low. Usually both.

Watch the Grenfell Tower fire in Kensington enquiry. (if we can wait long enough--might take years to clarify)

This tower block housed hundreds of poorer people in a very wealthy borough of London and was owned by the council. I think that some interesting facts may come out of it.

This is the first post, to my knowledge, to mention this, so I would advise folk not to stick their necks out about it and make comments that are not true.

I'm just mentioning it, now, because it might be relevant.

 

[dbphoenix]

IOW, a vertical Titanic.

 

[Atilla]

I appreciate we need to wait for the outcome of the report and the usual PR blurb but here I am jumping the gun; based on what most people saw and fire specialist pov, the crux of the problem seems more to do with recent changes.

In a nut shell brick and concrete doesn't burn so past advice correct and stands about not leaving apartment to ensure firemen get quickly up the stairs.

The fire in any one flat in no way should have spread so rapidly instead of being contained to a single flat as brick and concrete are not combustible.

It is clearly one of external cladding catching fire. One report I heard said there was a £2 per panel difference wrt fire retardant filling and fireresistant filling.

So they sandwhich a fire resistant filling in between fire retardant panels and secure to building to improve insulation and appearance on the more cost effective side let's say as opposed to safe and secure.

Heard somewhere on TV this came to a total cost difference of about £5,000.

Then it was said these flats being in the wealthiest Chelsea borough, received a £10m grant to tart up the buildings so they look better.

If the crux of the matter does boil down to something like this then everyone can draw their own conclusions.

This issue is also compounded and magnified as so many calls and issues raised by tenants were ignored.


What I fear is people in high places will hide behind labels and standards arguing to death retardant and resistant issues with various standards as to what is safe and what is not. It will become all very elaborate and technical. The decision to save £5K will be a small print in a 5000 page document somewhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40272168

:whistling

 

[Atilla]

In this day and age, a Just About Managing should not even be considering a mortgage, never mind have one. Low interest rates have led to people taking out massive mortgages which they couldn't really afford if rates were 'normal'. High earners are not even getting mortgages in London anymore, because the market is crazy. low interest rates have caused this (among other things). And yes some will suffer when rates rise, but you shouldn't have left them so low for so long,. That's the real problem.

Fairer distribution of income sounds good. But does it tend to mean taxing more on those who produce and are more skilled? Usually, and I can't support that.

Tax wealth, not earnings.

It is monetary policy to reduce rates when inflation is low or in during deflationary periods. Interest rates is the cost or price of money. So raising them during periods of recession when demand is low doesn't make sense. If anything it is counter productive.

Raising rates during inflationary periods does make sense and is justifiable. However, as has been said before Monetary policy on its own is a blunt tool. Doesn't necessarily work either because its success depends on the cycle we are in. Academics can argue to death but unless one considers expectations theory and what part of the curve we are on it's a blunt ineffective tool as governments and CBs have found out. It also screws up asset prices and leads to other issues which you mention.

BoE Carney has said along with other bankers there is a limit to what one can do and achieve with monetary policy. Without starting the Keynes we Monetarist debate - fiscal policy is absolutely essential for demand side money management. Anyone who argues against is a clown with his own head up his rear imho.

Thus situation is not necessarily simply low rates, it is equally low taxation and rising debt and cutting back social services as we can all see.

More peeps now arguing for infrastructure investment and a fairer distribution of income. However, we still have clowns like Trump and the Tories arguing for better management of the economy by spending more money on infrastructure and giving tax cuts to those who already have money.


Any self respecting economist knows you can't have:

1. Monetary policy alone for managing inflationary pressures ie economic is about Demand and Supply.
2. Can't have infrastructure spending whilst giving away tax cuts. :

As for weather one taxes wealth or income doesn't make much difference as long as it is fair. However, one doesn't have to be Einstein to figure the two go hand in hand. Don't see wealthy people earning small amounts of money or high earners living in a shed.

Raising rates has the effect of:
1. Rewarding those who have cash and wealth
2. Deters investment

Don't forget inflationary pressures currency related ie Brexit. So at a time when Brexit is creating mass uncertainty and postponement of investment to further raise rates to deter demand for money when disposable incomes will be hit is simply not to required solution for the problem in hand.


One last point, housing is a big screw up in the UK due to permitted developments and land rights. If the supply of land is restricted and goes to make up a large part of the cost of a house, then the supply of housing is choked against demand. Hence the skewed situation we find our selves in. Instead of doing the right thing let's just choke migrants or leave the EU instead to see if that solves our housing problem.

Point here is as per text book theory disequilibrium in one area has a destabilising effect in others.

 

[Signalcalc]

Point here is as per text book theory disequilibrium in one area has a destabilising effect in others.

Quite. What would be more interesting is what the text book doesn't tell you, some of the contents are missing.

Attempting to speculate about what those missing contents might be is an amusing pastime for some.

Lots of theory, but like the SPX, difficult to predict.

 

[dbphoenix]

What I fear is people in high places will hide behind labels and standards arguing to death retardant and resistant issues with various standards as to what is safe and what is not. It will become all very elaborate and technical. The decision to save £5K will be a small print in a 5000 page document somewhere.

Actually it has less to do with safety and more with the value of human life. This is one of the chief considerations when deciding how much to pay for "safety features", whether in buildings, cars, planes, foods, clothing, trains, and so forth. It isn't difficult to find instances where companies decide it's cheaper to be sued than it is to make the whatever it is safer.

 

[Atilla]

Quite. What would be more interesting is what the text book doesn't tell you, some of the contents are missing.

Attempting to speculate about what those missing contents might be is an amusing pastime for some.

Lots of theory, but like the SPX, difficult to predict.

Would you care to elaborate on the missing content?

What has lots of theory got to do with predicting SPX?

Why not volunteer your thoughts and educate us on the missing content?