I'd guess that 90+% of the electorate haven't got the foggiest who they are, and the Project Fear tactic has become a standing joke with a great many people anyway.
Think they may well know who they are by the end of today judging by the coverage on the news channels
Unlikely. We've had IMF warnings many, many times before this. By next week this is all going to be ancient history consigned to arguments on places like these or Andrew Neil using them to annoy Brexit campaigners on the DP.
'Good luck with that - best if leavers do not watch the broadcast media for the rest of the day but having said that these warnings will be played over and over again in remain adverts, broadcasts and during the debates right up to the 23rd June'
Interesting how the Chief Economist of the other Bretton Woods institution (which is not controlled by an EU functionary) has a much more relaxed and sensible view ---
'[Kaushik Basu] was more upbeat about Britain's prospects if it left the European Union, suggesting the country could thrive after a Brexit.
...the chief economist indicated that Britain could be better off outside the EU if it forged new trade ties and cemented old ones.'
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
Re IMF - if the damage will be so great and permanent why did our European friends not offer something meaningful to get us to stay?
Do they not care about the possible damage to people?
1. Because we didn't really ask. 2. Because (I suspect) they misjudged how likely a Brexit would be.
More to the point, there's nothing they leaders could have reasonably offered, with a decent chance of getting it past the relevant veto points (for treaty change, that means at a minimum upper and lower houses in all member states) that would have made a material difference to the probability of Brexit.
So you're going with the Elite issues profit warning theory.
Can;t see that worrying the huddled masses personally.
I think it will - bear in mind that the huddled masses don't need to be persuaded that their jobs and prosperity will be affected, only that they might be affected.
'Good luck with that - best if leavers do not watch the broadcast media for the rest of the day but having said that these warnings will be played over and over again in remain adverts, broadcasts and during the debates right up to the 23rd June'
Interesting how the Chief Economist of the other Bretton Woods institution (which is not controlled by an EU functionary) has a much more relaxed and sensible view ---
'[Kaushik Basu] was more upbeat about Britain's prospects if it left the European Union, suggesting the country could thrive after a Brexit.
...the chief economist indicated that Britain could be better off outside the EU if it forged new trade ties and cemented old ones.'
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
Alternatively, they're making sympathetic noises to help a fellow world leader with his 'little local difficulty' and to preserve the status quo.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
Anyone thinking the IMF has a good record on calling these kinds of things should have a close look at the GDP forecasts they put out for Greece in 2010/11, and compare them with the actual outturns. A bigger forecast miss it would be hard to find in the history of economic forecasting.
They should also take a close look at why the IMF signed up to take part in loan deals for Greece which they knew perfectly well were unworkable and indeed likely to be counterproductive.
The answer is of course, that all rationality had to be subordinated to the political imperative of preventing Greece from exiting the euro. As a number of their former staff members have confirmed.
Any official IMF comments on Brexit should be ignored. They are dancing to the same political tune now.
Good luck with that - best if leavers do not watch the broadcast media for the rest of the day but having said that these warnings will be played over and over again in remain adverts, broadcasts and during the debates right up to the 23rd June
It seems to come as a bit of a shock to you that the people talking here are not running the leave campaign. So when someone makes a point it is a touch fatuous to reply with words to the effect of "is that the best the leave campaign can do". The arguments we make or don't make are not worth a hill of beans to the campaign, you probably better book an appointment to talk with Mr Cummings, and take Mr Meeks with you, he has the same misapprehension.
I have never said 'is that the best the leave campaign can do' but this report today has raised the stakes in the debate. Also today's news that the EU is going to attack the likes of Starbucks, Amazon et al with a Europe wide regulation on tax declarations may well appeal to some as the best way to make these companies pay tax and that by being in the EU adds to the strength of stopping the Panama style abuses
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
Some AWFULLY important people are starting to get concerned about what those silly British people might do with the power they have been granted, thankfully temporarily.
I'd guess that 90+% of the electorate haven't got the foggiest who they are, and the Project Fear tactic has become a standing joke with a great many people anyway.
Think they may well know who they are by the end of today judging by the coverage on the news channels
It will be used almost daily by remain right up to the 23rd May
Anyone thinking the IMF has a good record on calling these kinds of things should have a close look at the GDP forecasts they put out for Greece in 2010/11, and compare them with the actual outturns. A bigger forecast miss it would be hard to find in the history of economic forecasting.
They should also take a close look at why the IMF signed up to take part in loan deals for Greece which they knew perfectly well were unworkable and indeed likely to be counterproductive.
The answer is of course, that all rationality had to be subordinated to the political imperative of preventing Greece from exiting the euro. As a number of their former staff members have confirmed.
Any official IMF comments on Brexit should be ignored. They are dancing to the same political tune now.
Good luck with that - best if leavers do not watch the broadcast media for the rest of the day but having said that these warnings will be played over and over again in remain adverts, broadcasts and during the debates right up to the 23rd June
It seems to come as a bit of a shock to you that the people talking here are not running the leave campaign. So when someone makes a point it is a touch fatuous to reply with words to the effect of "is that the best the leave campaign can do". The arguments we make or don't make are not worth a hill of beans to the campaign, you probably better book an appointment to talk with Mr Cummings, and take Mr Meeks with you, he has the same misapprehension.
I have never said 'is that the best the leave campaign can do' but this report today has raised the stakes in the debate. Also today's news that the EU is going to attack the likes of Starbucks, Amazon et al with a Europe wide regulation on tax declarations may well appeal to some as the best way to make these companies pay tax and that by being in the EU adds to the strength of stopping the Panama style abuses
So the EU is catching up with the UK, again. We already have a diverted profits tax and we did it without the rest of the EU.
So you're going with the Elite issues profit warning theory.
Can;t see that worrying the huddled masses personally.
I think it will - bear in mind that the huddled masses don't need to be persuaded that their jobs and prosperity will be affected, only that they might be affected.
Since you rarely mix with hoi polloi let me assure you Richard many people already think the EU places their job at risk and threatens their lifestyle. To date Remain have no counter argument for them.
I'd guess that 90+% of the electorate haven't got the foggiest who they are, and the Project Fear tactic has become a standing joke with a great many people anyway.
Think they may well know who they are by the end of today judging by the coverage on the news channels
It will be used almost daily by remain right up to the 23rd May
It won't work, see the latest polls. These are not the messages you are looking for.
I'd guess that 90+% of the electorate haven't got the foggiest who they are, and the Project Fear tactic has become a standing joke with a great many people anyway.
Think they may well know who they are by the end of today judging by the coverage on the news channels
It will be used almost daily by remain right up to the 23rd May
By which point the voters that both sides need to target will ask "who are they?".
So you're going with the Elite issues profit warning theory.
Can;t see that worrying the huddled masses personally.
I think it will - bear in mind that the huddled masses don't need to be persuaded that their jobs and prosperity will be affected, only that they might be affected.
The other side of that is whether the huddled masses believe that their jobs and prosperity are already being affected, and will be further affected without change.
Leave need a message like "You Decide" - not a promise of detail which they can't be certain about, but something more like "anyone who tells you they can see the future is lying, but vote leave and that future is free to be shaped by the people you elect". Blair got elected because a change of direction was appealing rather than because of the particular change he offered (for starters, much of his core vote genuinely believed he was going to do something different to what he promised).
Of course this relies on an electorate that feels more connection with Westminster than Brussels, and with the general anti-politics mood it's not clear whether that is the case. It may be similar to the Welsh referendum where the low turnout was anecdotally due to it "not making much difference whether we're governed by hypocrites in Westminster or hypocrites in Cardiff".
Re IMF - if the damage will be so great and permanent why did our European friends not offer something meaningful to get us to stay?
Do they not care about the possible damage to people?
1. Because we didn't really ask. 2. Because (I suspect) they misjudged how likely a Brexit would be.
More to the point, there's nothing they leaders could have reasonably offered, with a decent chance of getting it past the relevant veto points (for treaty change, that means at a minimum upper and lower houses in all member states) that would have made a material difference to the probability of Brexit.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It wasn't always about 'winning powers back for Britain'. A change in what the EU does and how it does it could be accomplished within the existing treaties.
Osborne mate Christine Lagarde being helpful again...not for the first time.
'Live' now on BBC news. Horrible for leave - Osborne and Mc Donell already on the news warning against Brexit in view of this report
No, not good for Leave at all. Some will doubtless don their tinfoil hats and denounce the IMF as the puppet of Dave and 'Project Dread'. But at best that will find resonance with only the truly converted. This could be a game-changer.
The way it is being reported is seriously dangerous to leave and looks like it will dominate the news media for the rest of today
Yep, if I was leave I'd throw in the towel right now. Game set and matchj. Tell you what, let's just cancel the referendum shall we? What's the point??
That seems a bit extreme but surely this is not the news leave wants to hear
The more these big institutions prophesise doom and gloom if we Leave makes me more certain than ever that Leave is the correct choice.
They have been wrong on pretty much everything they do or forecast, such as the Euro, and they are wrong once again.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
Their stakeholders are our stakeholders. If Brexit hits not only the UK economy, but also the rest of the EU and by extension the world economy, that makes it even more dangerous for us, in the shortish term.
I agree that the timeframe of the analysis matters, but I'd put it differently. The shortish term (between one year and several years, depending on how quickly we can do a deal and the nature of that deal) will show a quite significant economic hit. In the best possible scenario, that might be growth which has been delayed rather than lost for ever, but I wouldn't count on it. In the worst scenario - prolonged uncertainty and bickering over the deal ending up without full access to the Single Market for services - the economic hit could be very severe, perhaps comparable with the 2008/9 crash.
Long-term, who knows? I cannot see any particular reason to suppose that the long-term effect of Leave would be economically beneficial, but it is certainly possible that it will end up, eventually, as fairly neutral.
Anyone thinking the IMF has a good record on calling these kinds of things should have a close look at the GDP forecasts they put out for Greece in 2010/11, and compare them with the actual outturns. A bigger forecast miss it would be hard to find in the history of economic forecasting.
They should also take a close look at why the IMF signed up to take part in loan deals for Greece which they knew perfectly well were unworkable and indeed likely to be counterproductive.
The answer is of course, that all rationality had to be subordinated to the political imperative of preventing Greece from exiting the euro. As a number of their former staff members have confirmed.
Any official IMF comments on Brexit should be ignored. They are dancing to the same political tune now.
Good luck with that - best if leavers do not watch the broadcast media for the rest of the day but having said that these warnings will be played over and over again in remain adverts, broadcasts and during the debates right up to the 23rd June
It seems to come as a bit of a shock to you that the people talking here are not running the leave campaign. So when someone makes a point it is a touch fatuous to reply with words to the effect of "is that the best the leave campaign can do". The arguments we make or don't make are not worth a hill of beans to the campaign, you probably better book an appointment to talk with Mr Cummings, and take Mr Meeks with you, he has the same misapprehension.
I have never said 'is that the best the leave campaign can do' but this report today has raised the stakes in the debate. Also today's news that the EU is going to attack the likes of Starbucks, Amazon et al with a Europe wide regulation on tax declarations may well appeal to some as the best way to make these companies pay tax and that by being in the EU adds to the strength of stopping the Panama style abuses
So the EU is catching up with the UK, again. We already have a diverted profits tax and we did it without the rest of the EU.
And it still won't affect Amazon because as was mentioned here extensively earlier, they don't make and never have made, a profit. We could start taxing companies that make an operating loss, but I think it might be courageous.
Speculation that thread author @Roger has a small windfall .... (no tittering at the back) after rummaging in the loft of his French home have yet to be denied :
Long-term, who knows? I cannot see any particular reason to suppose that the long-term effect of Leave would be economically beneficial, but it is certainly possible that it will end up, eventually, as fairly neutral.
Long term it doesnt matter tuppence, we will be out before 2025 either way.
Since you rarely mix with hoi polloi let me assure you Richard many people already think the EU places their job at risk and threatens their lifestyle. To date Remain have no counter argument for them.
So I understand.
The trouble is, their reason for thinking that is incompatible with the EEA option which the non-hoi-polloi Leavers assure us is a reason for concluding their jobs aren't at risk.
Long-term, who knows? I cannot see any particular reason to suppose that the long-term effect of Leave would be economically beneficial, but it is certainly possible that it will end up, eventually, as fairly neutral.
Long term it doesnt matter tuppence, we will be out before 2025 either way.
IF I had to name one person who was the very epitome, essence and embodiment of the elite we are seeing a voter rebellion against, I would without hesitation chose Christine Lagarde.
Regarding the IMF, would this be the same IMF that knew that what they and the EU were doing to Greece wouldn't work, and in fact would be horribly counterproductive, but decided to do it anyway ?
"We have serious doubts about the approach," said Brazil's then director Paulo Nogueira Batista. He slammed IMF forecasts for Greece as overly optimistic - "Panglossian." Arvind Virmani, the director from India at the time, said the program imposed "a mammoth burden" that Greece's economy "could hardly bear."
But they and others who feared the IMF was walking into a quagmire had little room for maneuver. The fund's powerful Managing Director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and a handful of his advisers, feared Greece posed a threat to the wider euro zone financial system. They had already decided to plunge into the crisis. The doubters were given a blunt retort, according to the minutes.
Strauss Khan was much, much earlier. He ceased being director of the IMF in 2011. I am talking about when Tsipras came to power in early 2015. At that time, it was clear that Greece was not recovering inside the Euro, the banking system in Europe was better capitalised, and the IMF felt it was better getting repaid in Drachma than accepting the indignity of a haircut.
An IMF team flew to Greece almost immediately SYRIZA gained power. They proposed an immediate 'suspension' of Greek Euro membership, support with bank recapitalisation. They also promised, although it's not clear that they were authorised to say it, that the ECB would back Grexit.
Tsipras thought he could bully Germany and the ECB (and the IMF), and that they would be so scared of Grexit they would fold. That didn't happen. Tsipras alone must bear responsibility for that.
Who Loses the Most From ‘Brexit’? Try Goldman Sachs A vast construction site in the heart of London is a testament to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s $500 million bet on the city’s global financial clout.
But the bank’s new European headquarters might be a little emptier than planned if the U.K. votes in June to leave the European Union, Goldman’s executives say.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
Or are in the professional predictions business :-)
“There has been one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us,” said John McDonnell yesterday as he called on the PM to answer if he had “benefited directly or indirectly” from offshore funds...
Like other former Westminster City council employees, McDonnell’s pension investments are managed by the City of Westminster Pension Fund Committee. In November 2014, the committee invested £100 million with Longview, an active global equity manager. This is the disclosure of the investment in their annual report...
Regarding the IMF, would this be the same IMF that knew that what they and the EU were doing to Greece wouldn't work, and in fact would be horribly counterproductive, but decided to do it anyway ?
The IMF backed Grexit, but Tsipiras bottled it.
If only the Greeks had listened.
Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that the Greeks should have chosen to exit the Euro.
When Tsipras and SYRIZA first came to power, the IMF offered their full support to recapitalise the Greek banking sector following an exit. The ECB liked the fact that they would be able to hide losses by accepting repayment in devalued Drachma. It would clearly have been a massive boost to tourism.
But Tsipiras had promised the impossible: massive debt relief, without reform, and inside the Euro. Throughout the whole negotiating process he kept saying that the Germans and the IMF would fold. Instead, even the Germans by the end were proposing Grexit.
He chose to keep Greece in the Euro because he couldn't accept that his forecasts were wrong. It is terrible that so many Greeks are jobless because of his stubbornness.
Well Varoufakis resigned because Tsipras bottled it. I've heard he was advocating for Grexit from the start. In 2014 the political cost of Grexit was probably at an all time low, people had come around to the idea that they would leave, reform and then petition to re-enter 10-12 years down the line and it would be a one off given that the other nations had gone quite a bit further with their reforms or were too important to dump.
The best option for Greece was an economically sensible government that advocated Brexit.
Instead, they got the worst of all worlds: an economically illiterate government that stuck with the Euro.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
But people are not trying to cover their investment, they are trying to cover their trading expenses.
If you can buy a million "Stock X" today for £10.00 and sell it in six months for £12.00 you will have had a good day at the office, two million quid in the pocket minus a bit for the trading cost, which is what maybe a fiver for an execution only trade ?
Since you rarely mix with hoi polloi let me assure you Richard many people already think the EU places their job at risk and threatens their lifestyle. To date Remain have no counter argument for them.
So I understand.
The trouble is, their reason for thinking that is incompatible with the EEA option which the non-hoi-polloi Leavers assure us is a reason for concluding their jobs aren't at risk.
Tricky one, isn't it?
It's where you're going wrong. You're overintellecetualising about things most people don't even think about.
Start your argument at " that bastard took my salary" ( often true ) followed by management always look after themselves. Now let's have your counter argument.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
It's where you're going wrong. You're overintellecetualising about things most people don't even think about.
Start your argument at " that bastard took my salary" ( often true ) followed by management always look after themselves. Now let's have your counter argument.
Oh, I don't disagree that that is the politics of it, for a substantial number. That doesn't mean they are right that a vote for Leave won't make things worse.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
Does this mean that, sooner or later, wage pressures in China may increase? perhaps rapidly?
It's where you're going wrong. You're overintellecetualising about things most people don't even think about.
Start your argument at " that bastard took my salary" ( often true ) followed by management always look after themselves. Now let's have your counter argument.
Oh, I don't disagree that that is the politics of it, for a substantial number. That doesn't mean they are right that a vote for Leave won't make things worse.
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
I would say that it is rather that nobody has any idea about what would happen with either result. The Government (ie Osborne and Cameron) need to spell out clearly what happens next in the case of a Remain win.
And what they woud do in the case of a Leave win.
They have failed to do either. I find that thoroughly irresponsible of them.
Small wonder that the markets are in turmoil, faced with such a useless British government.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Demographics time bomb, industrialisation has already peaked and companies are moving out of China and into SE-Asia because of IP theft issues. China's road to being number one looks much harder today than it did 5 years ago. I agree that it will eventually get there, the population disparity is overwhelming, however that doesn't mean it is going to happen in the near term or it will even be a meaningful win by then.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
I think that's true but it seems more problematic for the Leave argument. Practically everyone agrees that Leave will mean short-term disruption but advocates say we would be better off in the long run. That, though, is a long-term forecast. The only thing you can be confident of getting is the short-term effect.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
I'm not sure that it will. Maybe the predictions of Chinese dominance will turn out like those regarding Japan in the 1980s.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
Does this mean that, sooner or later, wage pressures in China may increase? perhaps rapidly?
Wage pressures are already pretty severe in the cities. Hon Hai have put through about 30% of wage increases since early 2014.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Demographics-wise China have problems looming thanks to the one child policy don't they? I believe India are due to overtake China before too long and that is with a much-worse life expectancy. If India could resolve its much lower life expectancy issues then its population would boom to much more than China's.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
Does this mean that, sooner or later, wage pressures in China may increase? perhaps rapidly?
Now they have effectively abandoned the "one child" policy I expect those figures to improve dramatically over the next 20 years, probably sooner than that as illegal children are acknowledged and re-enter the system.... and the Philippines is growing at 2% a year so I am sure would be happy to export contract workers
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
Although don't forget that China's demographics are horrible. In Shanghai, the TFR is 0.78. China's working age population peaks next year. It's a lot harder to grow quickly when you have fewer and fewer workers.
Does this mean that, sooner or later, wage pressures in China may increase? perhaps rapidly?
Now they have effectively abandoned the "one child" policy I expect those figures to improve dramatically over the next 20 years, probably sooner than that as illegal children are acknowledged and re-enter the system.... and the Philippines is growing at 2% a year so I am sure would be happy to export contract workers
Once fertility rates have declined, they've proved stubbornly hard to raise.
Look at Singapore. Their government has some of the the most generous and aggressive pro-natal policies in the world. What's their TFR? According to Indexmundi, it's a staggering 0.8.
Singapore is a small island. They can (and do) import labour on a massive scale. China can't do that.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
They can be all those things you mention, Richard, and be right for their own stakeholders and wrong for the British public.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
The average ratio of company share price to annual earnings is 17. This means an investor has to hold shares for 17 years for the profits to cover his investment.
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
But people are not trying to cover their investment, they are trying to cover their trading expenses.
If you can buy a million "Stock X" today for £10.00 and sell it in six months for £12.00 you will have had a good day at the office, two million quid in the pocket minus a bit for the trading cost, which is what maybe a fiver for an execution only trade ?
The share price will only rise from £10 to £12 if the expectation for profits (and thus dividends) over the next 17 years increases proportionately. Share prices are based on long term expectations not on a single year.
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
"So the EU is catching up with the UK, again. We already have a diverted profits tax and we did it without the rest of the EU.
And it still won't affect Amazon because as was mentioned here extensively earlier, they don't make and never have made, a profit. We could start taxing companies that make an operating loss, but I think it might be courageous."
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
There is of course an explanation which fits the facts in a straightforward way, without having to invent ever more silly conspiracy theories - that the IMF, and the OECD, and the CBI, and all 20 of the G20 finance ministers, and all the big investment banks, and the vast majority of academic economists, and the Treasury, are well informed, genuinely believe what they say, and might well be right.
But no doubt the messenger-shooting will continue up to, and probably beyond, June 24th.
But of course, Mr Navabi. People who went to Eton always believe what they say. That is why they are so convincing.
Now they have effectively abandoned the "one child" policy I expect those figures to improve dramatically over the next 20 years, probably sooner than that as illegal children are acknowledged and re-enter the system.... and the Philippines is growing at 2% a year so I am sure would be happy to export contract workers
Once fertility rates have declined, they've proved stubbornly hard to raise.
Look at Singapore. Their government has some of the the most generous and aggressive pro-natal policies in the world. What's their TFR? According to Indexmundi, it's a staggering 0.8.
Singapore is a small island. They can (and do) import labour on a massive scale. China can't do that.
Indeed if China needed immigration to assist its demographics then where could they come from? Pretty much only Africa could generate enough new people to make a dent in assisting China if it became necessary.
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
The base data on the ICM poll is 54/46 Leave on 10/10 certain to vote (62% turnout)
That's getting very, very close to the 55% I believe Leave needs to be polling to have a 50% chance of winning [due to 'swingback' to the status quo]. The trend is with Leave but will it be too little, too late?
It might make it worse for you, it won't make it worse for them
No, other way round.
Only in your mind. They're already tight on cash and benefits and no government is going to remove them, people with pensions, assets and above average salaries on the other hand....
I am not sure too many semi-skilled manual workers attend Mr Nabavi's book club
there I was cleaning out the paint plant when my colleague Kev was suddenly struck by how the way the waste had fallen reminded him of Mark Rothko's No 61 no ! no ! screamed Wayne from the forklift truck it clearly has overtones of Jackson Pollack.....
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
We're talking about possibly 1% off GDP, even the IMF don't think it will be larger than that, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.2% in the three years after Brexit, assuming we don't go down the EEA route, in which case there will be no material change. It's about £16bn of economic activity in absolute terms, spread over three years. We've endured worse.
A bit like taxation however in that it is a great idea as long as you personally aren't affected.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
The base data on the ICM poll is 54/46 Leave on 10/10 certain to vote (62% turnout)
That's getting very, very close to the 55% I believe Leave needs to be polling to have a 50% chance of winning [due to 'swingback' to the status quo]. The trend is with Leave but will it be too little, too late?
1% short of your target with more than 2 months to go? Doesn't sound like too late to me.
Of course, Remain gets north of 16million quid, rather than just 7m, and have already spent more than the whole of Vote Leave's budget on their initial propaganda sheet.
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
Except the parent company (which gets those charges) is not making a profit. Amazon is not a profitable company and should not be discussed in that category. What should be done is ensuring that VAT is applied to all of Amazon's sales.
I hate the link between corporation tax and sales figures frequently made in the media. Ignorant bastards, VAT is the sales-related tax. *rolleyes*
Once fertility rates have declined, they've proved stubbornly hard to raise.
Look at Singapore. Their government has some of the the most generous and aggressive pro-natal policies in the world. What's their TFR? According to Indexmundi, it's a staggering 0.8.
Singapore is a small island. They can (and do) import labour on a massive scale. China can't do that.
The situation it Singapore is mildly amusing in some ways. Most young people there are too wedded to their job to want to waste time faffing around with all this dating, getting married and families nonsense. So the government pays them to attend government sponsored and paid for "dating parties" to try and get people to meet, and ultimately, have babies. It didn't quite work out that way, these parties have become a hub of activity for business networking!
Today is the first time I have seen Osborne, McDonnell and Alan Johnson all featured on the news channels heavily endorsing the IMF. Alan Johnson has been anonymous to date but he was pretty fired up today
I'm keeping everything crossed that the British spirit of 1940 hasn't fully died within our national psyche, and we are still able to stick a healthy two fingers up at those who say we are doomed.
According to the minutes of Broxtowe’s general committee held on February 25, a suggestion that comrades make a £500 donation to Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite hard Left sectarian pressure group, to help it meet the cost of its regional conference, was put to a show of hands and carried, reportedly, by a single vote.
Activists’ money was instead used to fund an event billed, ominously, as “A day of inclusive discussion & educational workshops”. And if that isn’t enough to make your blood run cold, posters for the March 5 event warned visitors that the conference would be addressed not only by the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell but by Christine Shawcroft and Chris Williamson.
Mr. T, long way to go yet. When we get closer, theoretical risks will become crystallised.
As an aside, I just noticed on my Amazon page that people who buy my books also buy books by other writers, amongst whom is numbered Marcus Aurelius.
[You can get a free version of his Meditations e-book, incidentally. A few interesting lines, but not one of my favourites, even though I used a quote from it in one book].
The YG tables show four of the five Welsh regions as Leave.
Labour tied with UKIP for 2nd among 60+ for Westminster.
Wonder what that means for the Senydd. Walesonline reported recently that Hope not hate were distributing half a million anti UKIP leaflets in the principality.
I am wondering if something is afoot, whatever the polls say.
With that ICM poll, LEAVE is now clearly winning this campaign.
Cameron must be in shreds.
Just think, if Dave had come back and said, "it's clear that there is no appetite for reform within the EU so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to recommend a Leave vote to the British people, my door remains open to the leaders of the EU for continued negotiation, but I cannot currently recommend for this great nation to vote to remain in a union that is so unwilling to reform". Leave would be streets ahead and Dave would get huge concessions when the EU came begging at the door to No. 10 for him to recommend remain.
But, the direst warnings are, in the scheme of things, pretty small beer.
I wouldn't say so, but I admire the fact that you are honest enough to accept that there is a trade-off.
The most pessimistic forecasts are that 10 years after Brexit, GDP could be 2-3% lower than would otherwise be the case. That seems a fairly modest level of risk to me.
10 year forecasts are worth nothing. We can barely predict what is going to happen next year let alone 10 years from now when there will be policy changes, different economic cycles at play etc...
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
China will without question come to dominate. There is no way that the US, with a population of 350m or so, can maintain top dog position against a country with four times that population when the bigger country gets its act together. China is to the US now what the US was to Britain in about the 1880s. There may be bubbles, booms and busts but unless China suffers serious social breakdown, there can only be one outcome in the end. The interesting question is where India fits in.
I'm not sure that it will. Maybe the predictions of Chinese dominance will turn out like those regarding Japan in the 1980s.
lol. China is already bigger and more important than America in many ways. Biggest global trader, biggest exporter, biggest middle class, biggest source of tourists, biggest consumer of cars, phones, steel, you name it. China is also bigger than America - already - in GDP by PPP.
China would have to somehow implode for it not to easily surpass America, on all levels, within the medium term. It will probably be twice the size of America by 2040, or earlier.
Comments
These are the experts who couldn't predict the biggest crash in a century.
And the timeframe of analysis matters too. Short-termism strongly biases towards Remain, long-termism is more friendly to Leave. Alas, markets and market-driven institutions have become dominated by short-termism, particularly in institutions dominated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And there is no need to shoot the messenger. There is only one messenger that should be listened to. The British electorate.
5 years ago, everyone, including a certain SeanT, was predicting the end of US hegemony and the start of Chinese domination in the near term. I don't see anyone sensible saying that is going to be the case today. Who knows what is going to happen 10 years from now, people who are making predictions that far out are deluded.
Better DO AS YOU ARE TOLD.
A question for the Remain case, how do you sell a defence of the CAP to consumers?
Neat tag line at the end, @roger . I liked it.
Osborne and McDonnell don't really hve the confidence of the GBP right now either...
It won't work, see the latest polls. These are not the messages you are looking for.
Leave need a message like "You Decide" - not a promise of detail which they can't be certain about, but something more like "anyone who tells you they can see the future is lying, but vote leave and that future is free to be shaped by the people you elect". Blair got elected because a change of direction was appealing rather than because of the particular change he offered (for starters, much of his core vote genuinely believed he was going to do something different to what he promised).
Of course this relies on an electorate that feels more connection with Westminster than Brussels, and with the general anti-politics mood it's not clear whether that is the case. It may be similar to the Welsh referendum where the low turnout was anecdotally due to it "not making much difference whether we're governed by hypocrites in Westminster or hypocrites in Cardiff".
They have been wrong on pretty much everything they do or forecast, such as the Euro, and they are wrong once again.
I agree that the timeframe of the analysis matters, but I'd put it differently. The shortish term (between one year and several years, depending on how quickly we can do a deal and the nature of that deal) will show a quite significant economic hit. In the best possible scenario, that might be growth which has been delayed rather than lost for ever, but I wouldn't count on it. In the worst scenario - prolonged uncertainty and bickering over the deal ending up without full access to the Single Market for services - the economic hit could be very severe, perhaps comparable with the 2008/9 crash.
Long-term, who knows? I cannot see any particular reason to suppose that the long-term effect of Leave would be economically beneficial, but it is certainly possible that it will end up, eventually, as fairly neutral.
Speculation that thread author @Roger has a small windfall .... (no tittering at the back) after rummaging in the loft of his French home have yet to be denied :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36024865
The trouble is, their reason for thinking that is incompatible with the EEA option which the non-hoi-polloi Leavers assure us is a reason for concluding their jobs aren't at risk.
Tricky one, isn't it?
Strauss Khan was much, much earlier. He ceased being director of the IMF in 2011. I am talking about when Tsipras came to power in early 2015. At that time, it was clear that Greece was not recovering inside the Euro, the banking system in Europe was better capitalised, and the IMF felt it was better getting repaid in Drachma than accepting the indignity of a haircut.
An IMF team flew to Greece almost immediately SYRIZA gained power. They proposed an immediate 'suspension' of Greek Euro membership, support with bank recapitalisation. They also promised, although it's not clear that they were authorised to say it, that the ECB would back Grexit.
Tsipras thought he could bully Germany and the ECB (and the IMF), and that they would be so scared of Grexit they would fold. That didn't happen. Tsipras alone must bear responsibility for that.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-loses-the-most-from-brexit-try-goldman-sachs-1460403274
So it is a myth that the stock market is dominated by short termism.
Instead, they got the worst of all worlds: an economically illiterate government that stuck with the Euro.
If you can buy a million "Stock X" today for £10.00 and sell it in six months for £12.00 you will have had a good day at the office, two million quid in the pocket minus a bit for the trading cost, which is what maybe a fiver for an execution only trade ?
Start your argument at " that bastard took my salary" ( often true ) followed by management always look after themselves. Now let's have your counter argument.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/719872913470435332
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/719874720053784576
And what they woud do in the case of a Leave win.
They have failed to do either. I find that thoroughly irresponsible of them.
Small wonder that the markets are in turmoil, faced with such a useless British government.
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=116762
London clearly identifiable on the petition map from it's lighter colours, West Tyrone (Shinners) lowest support for petition.
Look at Singapore. Their government has some of the the most generous and aggressive pro-natal policies in the world. What's their TFR? According to Indexmundi, it's a staggering 0.8.
Singapore is a small island. They can (and do) import labour on a massive scale. China can't do that.
(Not you)
Before Port Talbot, yes. Now? not so sure. May not vote...
I read your final line to my wife and she laughed but then said "isn't that the opposite of 'teach a man to fish ...'"
"So the EU is catching up with the UK, again. We already have a diverted profits tax and we did it without the rest of the EU.
And it still won't affect Amazon because as was mentioned here extensively earlier, they don't make and never have made, a profit. We could start taxing companies that make an operating loss, but I think it might be courageous."
Whilst Amazon don't make a profit overall because of their loss leading investment in new business, they may well make a profit in some countries before charges from the parent company for use of brand, patents, loans etc.
Some of these charges from the parent may not reflect a charge for true economic activity elsewhere but the diversion of profits to countries with low tax rates like the Bahamas, or some Swiss cantons. Hence the UK need for a diverted profits tax and limit on interest that companies can offset against tax.
.... not a conversation I have very often :-)
The YG tables show four of the five Welsh regions as Leave.
Labour tied with UKIP for 2nd among 60+ for Westminster.
1% of GDP in abstract seems trivial but translated into value and wealth destruction of one type or another, perhaps less so.
My exact thought also when I read the piece.
Good piece, Mr. Roger.
Of course, Remain gets north of 16million quid, rather than just 7m, and have already spent more than the whole of Vote Leave's budget on their initial propaganda sheet.
I hate the link between corporation tax and sales figures frequently made in the media. Ignorant bastards, VAT is the sales-related tax. *rolleyes*
I'm keeping everything crossed that the British spirit of 1940 hasn't fully died within our national psyche, and we are still able to stick a healthy two fingers up at those who say we are doomed.
The market sells on the rumour of bad news to come but buys on the actuality.
Actual Brexit would see a recovery.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2016/04/12/Hezbollah-transforming-to-a-juggernaut-in-Syria.html
As an aside, I just noticed on my Amazon page that people who buy my books also buy books by other writers, amongst whom is numbered Marcus Aurelius.
[You can get a free version of his Meditations e-book, incidentally. A few interesting lines, but not one of my favourites, even though I used a quote from it in one book].
I am wondering if something is afoot, whatever the polls say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36027731