Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

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.

That certainly is a due consideration in budgeting and development but in this case key business driver seems to have been, keep costs down to maximise profits.

Key determining factor will be fire safety standards and whether they were adhered to fully or corners cut.

News media referring to criminal charges and investigations are under way.

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

 

[dbphoenix]

That certainly is a due consideration in budgeting and development but in this case key business driver seems to have been, keep costs down to maximise profits.

Which is a way of restating my point, e.g., the scarcity of lifeboats on the Titanic.

Key determining factor will be fire safety standards and whether they were adhered to fully or corners cut.

News media referring to criminal charges and investigations are under way.

Even if standards were not adhered to and charges are brought, there will be no consequence beyond a fine. The way of the world. But then somebody can get twenty years for purse snatching, if they're the wrong color.

 

[Atilla]

Which is a way of restating my point, e.g., the scarcity of lifeboats on the Titanic.

Cost wasn't a factor in the building of the Titanic. It was the most elegant and luxurious ship ever built. It was sheer arrogance and image. The sheep was believed to be unsinkable thus no need for any boats.

It was later designed for 32 but reduced to 20 apparently because of the aesthetics much like the fourth fake chimney that was added.

Even if standards were not adhered to and charges are brought, there will be no consequence beyond a fine. The way of the world. But then somebody can get twenty years for purse snatching, if they're the wrong color.

Agree with your second point. Same here in the UK. If shelf stacker steals a bag of sugar from Tescos he'll get fired. Chief Exec can steal literally 00s of 000s in expenses from million pound salaries and he'll get a higher bonus coz he obviously needs it. 😡

Same goes for politicians' expenses. :whistling

 

[dbphoenix]

Cost wasn't a factor in the building of the Titanic. It was the most elegant and luxurious ship ever built. It was sheer arrogance and image. The sheep was believed to be unsinkable thus no need for any boats.

Luxurious for the wealthy. Steerage, not so much.

 

[Signalcalc]

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? 🙄





👍

Actually, thinking a bit more deeply about it "Text Book Theory" is an oxymoron!

 

[Atilla]

Luxurious for the wealthy. Steerage, not so much.

Yes there were three different class levels and perhaps there should have been three different class level of lifeboats.

Problem is where would one store the lifeboats out of site like they did with third class passengers?
:whistling

 

[dbphoenix]

Yes there were three different class levels and perhaps there should have been three different class level of lifeboats.

Problem is where would one store the lifeboats out of site like they did with third class passengers?

It wasn't a problem since they most likely didn't care.

The sinking of the Titanic and the extreme differences between the numbers of first-class and third-class deaths served to illustrate the callousness of the public toward the poor. They were out of sight and out of mind, particularly when it came to the notion of caring for them, caring that is beyond the workhouse.

Did the owners carry so few lifeboats out of conscious disregard for steerage passengers? I doubt it. I suspect rather they just didn't think about it. Third class just didn't matter. Same as today.

The current rise of what people mistakenly call "populism" should come as no surprise. It's the same old story. Over and over again.

 

[Splitlink]

Which is a way of restating my point, e.g., the scarcity of lifeboats on the Titanic.



Even if standards were not adhered to and charges are brought, there will be no consequence beyond a fine. The way of the world. But then somebody can get twenty years for purse snatching, if they're the wrong color.

That was over 100 years earlier. Legislation changes when disasters happen so, hopefully, the safety regulations concerning large blocks are, already. in place. making it easier to catch law breakers.

After Titanic, eg. there had to be enough lifeboats on each side of the ship to take all the passengers and crew. Ships stayed out of the iceberg zone, too, when the ice was breaking up and bergs were moving south.

We live and learn, excepr when money comes into it.

Little has been said about the fire brigade's inability to get the hoses higher than a certain level.
That, obviously, cannot be right in this day and age.

 

[Pat494]

That was over 100 years earlier. Legislation changes when disasters happen so, hopefully, the safety regulations concerning large blocks are, already. in place. making it easier to catch law breakers.

After Titanic, eg. there had to be enough lifeboats on each side of the ship to take all the whole passengers and crew. Ships stayed out of the iceberg zone, too, when the ice was breaking up.

We live and learn, excepr when money comes into it.

Just another flaw in greedy capitalism - callousness

 

[Splitlink]

Just another flaw in greedy capitalism - callousness

Not just capitalism, though. Who has not cut corners, sure that nothing will happen? The working man is his own worst enemy.

 

[seekingTruth16]

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.

We're not in a recession. The recession was 8 years ago. If inflation is the thing to be controlled, then surely rates should be raised right now.

You mention raising rates will reward those who have cash and wealth. Well I don't really buy that. Increase rates 1% doesn't really change much for those sitting on cash, especially as inflation is already higher than that. So the capital will be eroded less quickly. But in any case, the wealthy won't be sitting on just cash, they will be in assets, houses, stocks etc. Low rates have given a massive increase to those. So your argument doesn't hold.

I don't agree with you about wealth and earnings. They don't go hand in hand. The fact that someone who earns well doesn't live in a shed isn't a valid riposte.

 

[seekingTruth16]

That was over 100 years earlier. Legislation changes when disasters happen so, hopefully, the safety regulations concerning large blocks are, already. in place. making it easier to catch law breakers.

After Titanic, eg. there had to be enough lifeboats on each side of the ship to take all the passengers and crew. Ships stayed out of the iceberg zone, too, when the ice was breaking up and bergs were moving south.

We live and learn, excepr when money comes into it.

Little has been said about the fire brigade's inability to get the hoses higher than a certain level.
That, obviously, cannot be right in this day and age.

Yes, in this day and age, with all the advances made, the fact that the fire brigade have to shoot hoses in for hours and can't even extinguish the fire is ridiculous. People stuck in the building without even the opportunity to jump down onto some safety net...scandalous. Maybe something like the american style ladders on the side of the building would have helped. There has to be a better way.

 

[seekingTruth16]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40318284

 

[dbphoenix]

That was over 100 years earlier. Legislation changes when disasters happen so, hopefully, the safety regulations concerning large blocks are, already. in place. making it easier to catch law breakers.

After Titanic, eg. there had to be enough lifeboats on each side of the ship to take all the passengers and crew. Ships stayed out of the iceberg zone, too, when the ice was breaking up and bergs were moving south.

We live and learn, excepr when money comes into it.

Little has been said about the fire brigade's inability to get the hoses higher than a certain level.
That, obviously, cannot be right in this day and age.

It's not about lifeboats any more than it is about the acceptance of the SOS standard. It's about disregard. As for the firemen's inability to get the hoses higher than a certain level, this has been widely known for decades.

As for catching lawbreakers, again no one is going to jail over this. It's all part of the capitalist ethic.

 

[dbphoenix]

Yes, in this day and age, with all the advances made, the fact that the fire brigade have to shoot hoses in for hours and can't even extinguish the fire is ridiculous. People stuck in the building without even the opportunity to jump down onto some safety net...scandalous. Maybe something like the american style ladders on the side of the building would have helped. There has to be a better way.

There was a great deal of discussion about this when technology and building commissions allowed developers to erect structures higher than five stories. One of the reasons for the proliferation of outside fire escapes. The situation was only made worse with the invention of the elevator.

But money changes hands. If the people making the money don't live in the building, who cares?

 

[Pat494]

There was a great deal of discussion about this when technology and building commissions allowed developers to erect structures higher than five stories. One of the reasons for the proliferation of outside fire escapes. The situation was only made worse with the invention of the elevator.

But money changes hands. If the people making the money don't live in the building, who cares?

A blacklist of unsafe buildings could emerge from this with stiff penalties for law breakers.

 

[Splitlink]

A blacklist of unsafe buildings could emerge from this with stiff penalties for law breakers.

If that happens it will be interesting to see which buildings are in socialist councils and which are in conservative ones.

 

[Atilla]

We're not in a recession. The recession was 8 years ago. If inflation is the thing to be controlled, then surely rates should be raised right now.

It's difficult to gauge what part of cycle curve we are on. I don't see the traditional sine wave. More of a long L curve recovery and a fragile one at that. Some indications PMI is deteriating so not 100% on timing.

You mention raising rates will reward those who have cash and wealth. Well I don't really buy that. Increase rates 1% doesn't really change much for those sitting on cash, especially as inflation is already higher than that. So the capital will be eroded less quickly. But in any case, the wealthy won't be sitting on just cash, they will be in assets, houses, stocks etc. Low rates have given a massive increase to those. So your argument doesn't hold.

Which ever way you look at it a 1% increase will transfer monies from debtors to creditors and hit demand and aggravate JAMs. Also peeps on fixed incomes in the public sector.

I don't agree with you about wealth and earnings. They don't go hand in hand. The fact that someone who earns well doesn't live in a shed isn't a valid riposte.

Weather you tax wealth or income all much the same. As long as budget deficit balances no probs. Only issue with taxing wealth is people get taxed twice. They've paid their taxes saved and accumulated wealth. So to have secondary taxation on ethical grounds is not very fair.

Coming back to original issue... Inflation is more to do with currency drop and suppliers trying to pass on price increases to customers whilst maintaining profits.

Raising rates and punishing JAMs and householders along with business wanting to invest to rectify currency fall due to Brexit, fires another shot to Brexiters arguement about how wonderful it'll all be. We'll be able to export more when our currency falls they said.

Once again, trying to fudge the issue and railing againts tax hikes is causing all sorts of confusion in the minds of politicians and public.

Why don't we all have cake and eat it.


The fan will hit the Brexit soon enough 🙁

 

[Pat494]

I am surprised the silly woman doesn't give everyone the finger and order some more submarines !

Time for a leadership change imho but who is waiting in the wings ?

 

[Atilla]

I am surprised the silly woman doesn't give everyone the finger and order some more submarines !

Time for a leadership change imho but who is waiting in the wings ?

Clarket or Heseltine for me. The old guard. That's what you can call strong and stable leadership. People will know exactly where they stand and how they conduct them selves.

Both elderly and wise and not power driven now either. Just elderly respectable gentlemen.