politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A year ago BoJo was hot favourite for PM: Now those concerned

Foxy said:

tyson said:

Foxy said:

tyson said:

Foxy said:

tyson said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Looks like the pro Leave rally today had a few along too

https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1010522045757689859

https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1010567125075939329

It was on Channel 4 news, looked a couple of hundred.

Looks like at least a few thousand

I'm a very proud remainer and Europhile...but the last thing I could be arsed doing today is hoofing around London on a march.

My brother was there, but shares my scepticism about a second referendum. Pushing the government to BINO was his aim.

I've really lost the will on the Brexit thing...I've kind of filed it in the same place as climate change, badger culling, Japanese whaling, Trump (anything to do with), the ivory trade, the Mexico cartels, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson, JRM, Venezuela..you know the file marked as "shit..and better left alone".........


Anyway, headsup Foxy to your bro for giving a fuck still because I don't

I am largely on the same place. I have arranged my affairs to do well in any outcome from A50 repeal to car crash Brexit. Now I just need to watch.

Mine is a job that is in demand throughout the world, independent of the economy. If I were an auto worker then I might have trouble sleeping, but I am not.

I kind have disengaged from Brexit until from time to time I come on here read to some some Numpty, Dumpty ideological bullshit from the likes of Philip Thompson talking up some Liam Fox nonsense crap...

For some reason I have never found building up significant amounts of wealth that difficult whatever decisions I make, Brexit or no Brexit...but I drive a car worth about 100 quid at a stretch, so I'm probably unusual....

I drive a 10 year old Fiat 500. It is a great little car.

Perhaps the secret of acquiring money is not spending much

The lady in front of me bought £45 of scratcvh cards at the newsagents last night. Apparently she does that every day !
Long term that sort of habit can cost tens of thousands.

Pulpstar said:

Foxy said:

tyson said:

Foxy said:

tyson said:

Foxy said:

tyson said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Looks like the pro Leave rally today had a few along too

https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1010522045757689859

https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1010567125075939329

It was on Channel 4 news, looked a couple of hundred.

Looks like at least a few thousand

I'm a very proud remainer and Europhile...but the last thing I could be arsed doing today is hoofing around London on a march.

My brother was there, but shares my scepticism about a second referendum. Pushing the government to BINO was his aim.

I've really lost the will on the Brexit thing...I've kind of filed it in the same place as climate change, badger culling, Japanese whaling, Trump (anything to do with), the ivory trade, the Mexico cartels, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson, JRM, Venezuela..you know the file marked as "shit..and better left alone".........


Anyway, headsup Foxy to your bro for giving a fuck still because I don't

I am largely on the same place. I have arranged my affairs to do well in any outcome from A50 repeal to car crash Brexit. Now I just need to watch.

Mine is a job that is in demand throughout the world, independent of the economy. If I were an auto worker then I might have trouble sleeping, but I am not.

I kind have disengaged from Brexit until from time to time I come on here read to some some Numpty, Dumpty ideological bullshit from the likes of Philip Thompson talking up some Liam Fox nonsense crap...

For some reason I have never found building up significant amounts of wealth that difficult whatever decisions I make, Brexit or no Brexit...but I drive a car worth about 100 quid at a stretch, so I'm probably unusual....

I drive a 10 year old Fiat 500. It is a great little car.

Perhaps the secret of acquiring money is not spending much

The lady in front of me bought £45 of scratcvh cards at the newsagents last night. Apparently she does that every day !
Long term that sort of habit can cost tens of thousands.

Perhaps she has an inheritance tax problem she is trying to solve buy have fun insteade of just directly donating it to charity.

surby said:

welshowl said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

surby said:

tlg86 said:

surby said:

After the 3rd matches, it could be 6-6-6 points.

Alternatively it could be 9-3-3-3

Has Mexico actually qualified ? I think I read that somewhere ?

I don't think so. Not if it ends up 6-6-6

If Germany beat S Korea by 2 goals or more then I think they're through.
Sweden need a better result than Germany. I think if Germany wins by 1 then Sweden winning by 2 gets them and Germany through.
A draw is good enough for Mexico.

This could get really weird ( I think). I think if Sweden and Germany with their next games one nil Sweden, Germany, and Mexico have identical points, goal difference, goals scored, and would each have beaten one of the other two and lost to the other one. I think we then get down to number of red and yellow cards in a fair play points league.

I think.

Of course S Korea could thrash Germany four nil and still qualify if Mexico beat Sweden. But we’d all be on tranquilizers by then anyway and probably oxygen.

If South Korea win 4-0 and qualify then Kim Jong Un will give up his nuclear weapons and Brexit will happen unimpeded.

It’s worse than that. Clearly there would be an undetected black hole at the heart of the solar system that would now be so close that the norms of the known universe would be being warped.

Either that, or Putin’s got the results already in a drawer at the Kremlin and is just trolling Paddy Power for laughs.

OchEye said:

Looks like the Jerries and Frogs are coming up with a piece of kit that makes the F35 look like a US overpriced underpowered bit of shit. Ah! the wonders of Brexit....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9IE8WIvfFY&feature=push-fr&attr_tag=Ur7AU82ZTLTsvcnB-6

They'll still need to build the wings in Chester.....

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tyson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I would be staggered if it ever fell below 20%. Time zones and distance matter.

So does population and wealth. The EU is losing both at quite a rate. Currently it forms 7% of global population but that is falling annually. It will before too long be 6% at which point even if we do three times the trade per capita with Europeans as we do non-Europeans it still gets us to below 20%.

And.....???

Seriously, the Brexit population argument is bobbins

The argument isn't about population its about opportunities. Are you familiar with the concept of Opportunity Cost?

I am familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, but it would be helpful if you could explain how losing European markets helps us win markets in Africa.

Much as I love Africa, surely smaller sales of Mini 's or Range Rogers to the EU pushes up unit costs, thereby making them more expensive elsewhere?

Its not about losing European markets its about the fact that Europe is falling in significance on its own accord.

We will long-term (even if we leave without a deal) get a deal with Europe. We're not guaranteed a deal with the rest of the world. If we can seek a better deal with the rest of the world outside the EU then that becomes progressively more valuable as the rest of the world inevitably grows better than the EU will.

But you agree that losing export markets to the EU pushes up unit costs. Thereby making our exports less competetive?

And surely losing existing EU FTAs worsens terms of trade initially?

If we lose export markets to the EU then yes, but I'm expecting a deal which makes it nul.

I'm also expecting (though losing confidence in Fox) all existing FTAs rolling over.

The evidence of the last 2 years is that neither of your expectations is grounded in experience.

Unless we stay in Customs Union etc.

Not sure what evidence you're referring to. The evidence of the last 30 years is that the EU only reaches agreement at 5 minutes to midnight. A deal will be reached but not before it has to be.

Fior a change can we just reach an agreement in good time and then we can start arguing about other things

I'm fairly sanguine that in ten years time people will look back at Brexit and wonder what all the fuss was about. The projections of doom and gloom are about as plausible as the Y2K ones.

There may be adjustments but there are adjustments all the time its part of life. But overall there is no evidence I can see that the world's developed nations inside the EU are doing any better than the world's developed nations outside of it. So whether we're in or out won't make all that much of a difference ultimately economically.

Foxy said:

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

A laughable threat.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tyson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I would be staggered if it ever fell below 20%. Time zones and distance matter.

So does population and wealth. The EU is losing both at quite a rate. Currently it forms 7% of global population but that is falling annually. It will before too long be 6% at which point even if we do three times the trade per capita with Europeans as we do non-Europeans it still gets us to below 20%.

And.....???

Seriously, the Brexit population argument is bobbins

The argument isn't about population its about opportunities. Are you familiar with the concept of Opportunity Cost?

I am familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, but it would be helpful if you could explain how losing European markets helps us win markets in Africa.

Much as I love Africa, surely smaller sales of Mini 's or Range Rogers to the EU pushes up unit costs, thereby making them more expensive elsewhere?

Its not about losing European markets its about the fact that Europe is falling in significance on its own accord.

We will long-term (even if we leave without a deal) get a deal with Europe. We're not guaranteed a deal with the rest of the world. If we can seek a better deal with the rest of the world outside the EU then that becomes progressively more valuable as the rest of the world inevitably grows better than the EU will.

But you agree that losing export markets to the EU pushes up unit costs. Thereby making our exports less competetive?

And surely losing existing EU FTAs worsens terms of trade initially?

If we lose export markets to the EU then yes, but I'm expecting a deal which makes it nul.

I'm also expecting (though losing confidence in Fox) all existing FTAs rolling over.

The evidence of the last 2 years is that neither of your expectations is grounded in experience.

Unless we stay in Customs Union etc.

Not sure what evidence you're referring to. The evidence of the last 30 years is that the EU only reaches agreement at 5 minutes to midnight. A deal will be reached but not before it has to be.

I expect so. May will sign whatever the EU27 propose.

That is why she opposes parliamentary scrutiny.

CD13 said:

Interesting view from Vernon Bogdanor on the Parliament channel.

He pointed out that it was up to a parliament with a Remain majority to implement Leave, because electoral sovereignty over-rules parliamentary sovereignty.

But then we all knew that, didn't we?

Hah! Vernon was my tutor at uni - tried to persuade him of that at the time and never succeeded!

Foxy said:

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

20bn? Where the hell are we going to find that? Even the magic money tree being shaken for the NHS only gets us so far.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

What a bunch of sad naive losers on the pro-EU march in London.

Willing to march for a foreign anti-democratic unaccountable and dismissive bureaucracy, rather than to enhance the democracy and freedom of themselves and their own country.

Disgraceful.

Still, at least they didn’t fall in behind xenophobic lies in order to win a referendum.

No. They fell in behind xenophobic lies but lost...

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

OchEye said:

Looks like the Jerries and Frogs are coming up with a piece of kit that makes the F35 look like a US overpriced underpowered bit of shit. Ah! the wonders of Brexit....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9IE8WIvfFY&feature=push-fr&attr_tag=Ur7AU82ZTLTsvcnB-6

"According to the German Defense Ministry factsheet, this plane does not yet have a name, and is only referred to as a Next Generation Weapons System (NGWS). Nor are many other details known about the aircraft, other than that it will carry both air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles."

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-france-present-new-military-aircraft-plans-in-berlin/a-43554242

"coming up with" == initial stages of new project; they will probably fall out (see projects passim), and the aircraft will only be in squadron service well beyond the current 2040 date ...

The future is all unmanned.

They need to be recruiting hardcore gamers, the kind who like super realistic simulation games, no need for all that fancy pilot training.

No need. It'll all be autonomous.

Darn it - another cool job taken by the machines.

kle4 said:

Surprised that Leadsom is still at 4% in the next Tory leader stakes. I guess she's the most plausible female candidate having done well before, but she's been invisible since then as far as I can recall at least.

Javid might end up being a flash in the pan. What red meat can he offer the rank and file membership?

I don't think there's any need for the Tories to go for a female next time. If the best candidate happens to be female then great but female for female sake should count for nothing.

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Surprised that Leadsom is still at 4% in the next Tory leader stakes. I guess she's the most plausible female candidate having done well before, but she's been invisible since then as far as I can recall at least.

Javid might end up being a flash in the pan. What red meat can he offer the rank and file membership?

I don't think there's any need for the Tories to go for a female next time. If the best candidate happens to be female then great but female for female sake should count for nothing.

Indeed it should not, and I wouldn't expect it to be definitive, I just assume at least one woman will stand and there is a case for it to be her again which is why I assume she is still higher than any other female candidates despite being invisible.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

BigRich said:

Casino_Royale said:

What a bunch of sad naive losers on the pro-EU march in London.

Willing to march for a foreign anti-democratic unaccountable and dismissive bureaucracy, rather than to enhance the democracy and freedom of themselves and their own country.

Disgraceful.

Please don't use personal insults towards people who you disagree with.

I may support BREXIT, but I also respect peoples right to protest, which is all they are doing.

You and I may disagree with the Remain supporters on here, but they are not Sad, or Naive or Losers. They are people who see things differently to us, and tha'ts fine we both what this to be a free country.

I hope that hope that one day this division will be behind us and they change their mind and see that BREXIT has been a big success, (I hope) perhaps you agree with that. But insulted are a counter productive means of perspiration I know, think of Hillary Basket of deplorables comment.

Brexit is already a disaster because those people who hated the EU passionately decided that it was worth pandering to xenophobia to win the referendum. The country has not recovered from that, nor will it till that is acknowledged. The divisions will endure indefinitely.

The Miners' Strike was far more bitter and divisive than Brexit, but over time, passions cooled.

Have they?

I think a great many ex-miners would not altogether agree...

I have a client who slightly irritatingly insists on calling himself Arthur Scargill when he gets my switchboard. The receptionist has absolutely no idea that it isn’t his real name because she has no idea about the Miners Strike

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

2-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm streaming and it hasn't haappened yet.

Isn’t there an app that lets the crowd tell you what the score is?

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

BigRich said:

However I think you may be less accurate about the importance, the EU is 7% of would population and 14% of GDP, both of tese % as decreasing, and distance is becoming less important as Planes get faster, ships get bigger broadband internet gets Broader(?) new harbors roads railways and airports are opening up the would would so quickly.

I can see trade with the EU falling below 20% in the next 10 - 15 years.

Who do I get on with best - my next door neighbour or my friends in Cardiff? Easily the latter.

Who do I speak to more often? Definitely the former, because they live next door.

While the trade issue may become less pressing, it's not going to vanish and geography will dictate that Europe, as it has for three millennia, will continue to be vital to us and central to our interests.

I would also point out that a huge amount of Britain's existing business is built around serving the EU. Our financial services industry was built to be the hub for the EU, connecting those who want capital in Europe, with those who have savings. Simply, it is not going to be the hub for connecting Chinese savings with American need for capital.

Likewise, a great deal of our manufacturing, in areas such as automotive or aerospace is part of pan-EU supply chains. That can't be quickly pivoted towards the rest of the world.

I would be surprised if - assuming the EU doesn't collapse - the proportion of our trade with it falls by more than 0.5-1% per year. (And I suspect in the next three years, and as the Eurozone recovers and as it will take time to replicate the EU's existing arrangements, it may go in the opposite direction.)

Um... you do know the modern City grew up around the Eurodollar market - connecting Arab savings with the American need for capital?

Nothing to do with the EU

The Eurodollar market was important for the City, because it brought the big US banks to the UK in size. But it wasn't - and has never been - dominant in the UK.

Pulpstar said:

Foxy said:

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

A laughable threat.

I can only assume that, when he worked in that fireplace showroom, he made a pact for that month's sales trophy and asked the devil to make him the world's finest mantelpiece.

Unfortunately, the devil is old and hard of hearing, and somewhat mixed up the vowels in the last word.

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

BigRich said:

However I think you may be less accurate about the importance, the EU is 7% of would population and 14% of GDP, both of tese % as decreasing, and distance is becoming less important as Planes get faster, ships get bigger broadband internet gets Broader(?) new harbors roads railways and airports are opening up the would would so quickly.

I can see trade with the EU falling below 20% in the next 10 - 15 years.

Who do I get on with best - my next door neighbour or my friends in Cardiff? Easily the latter.

Who do I speak to more often? Definitely the former, because they live next door.

While the trade issue may become less pressing, it's not going to vanish and geography will dictate that Europe, as it has for three millennia, will continue to be vital to us and central to our interests.

I would also point out that a huge amount of Britain's existing business is built around serving the EU. Our financial services industry was built to be the hub for the EU, connecting those who want capital in Europe, with those who have savings. Simply, it is not going to be the hub for connecting Chinese savings with American need for capital.

Likewise, a great deal of our manufacturing, in areas such as automotive or aerospace is part of pan-EU supply chains. That can't be quickly pivoted towards the rest of the world.

I would be surprised if - assuming the EU doesn't collapse - the proportion of our trade with it falls by more than 0.5-1% per year. (And I suspect in the next three years, and as the Eurozone recovers and as it will take time to replicate the EU's existing arrangements, it may go in the opposite direction.)

Um... you do know the modern City grew up around the Eurodollar market - connecting Arab savings with the American need for capital?

Nothing to do with the EU

The Eurodollar market was important for the City, because it brought the big US banks to the UK in size. But it wasn't - and has never been - dominant in the UK.

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Tim_B said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

20bn? Where the hell are we going to find that? Even the magic money tree being shaken for the NHS only gets us so far.

.

One thing that has always intrigued me is policies like "We will spend an extra X million pounds on the NHS."

Not improve outpatient efficiency or reduce waiting times for operations, but merely spend the money untargeted. UNsurprisingly this leads to wasted money and no definitive improvements.

It's a fair point. Political problems always promise they will both spend more money and more effectively spend the money they already spend. Problem is that if you don't promise X more then you will be attacked for cutting even if you can be more efficient and effective with less. I don't see, in practical terms, how a party can get away without vague, untargeted promises - voters will probably punish their absence, even as they, we, react skeptically to the claims.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

BigRich said:

However I think you may be less accurate about the importance, the EU is 7% of would population and 14% of GDP, both of tese % as decreasing, and distance is becoming less important as Planes get faster, ships get bigger broadband internet gets Broader(?) new harbors roads railways and airports are opening up the would would so quickly.

I can see trade with the EU falling below 20% in the next 10 - 15 years.

Who do I get on with best - my next door neighbour or my friends in Cardiff? Easily the latter.

Who do I speak to more often? Definitely the former, because they live next door.

While the trade issue may become less pressing, it's not going to vanish and geography will dictate that Europe, as it has for three millennia, will continue to be vital to us and central to our interests.

I would also point out that a huge amount of Britain's existing business is built around serving the EU. Our financial services industry was built to be the hub for the EU, connecting those who want capital in Europe, with those who have savings. Simply, it is not going to be the hub for connecting Chinese savings with American need for capital.

Likewise, a great deal of our manufacturing, in areas such as automotive or aerospace is part of pan-EU supply chains. That can't be quickly pivoted towards the rest of the world.

I would be surprised if - assuming the EU doesn't collapse - the proportion of our trade with it falls by more than 0.5-1% per year. (And I suspect in the next three years, and as the Eurozone recovers and as it will take time to replicate the EU's existing arrangements, it may go in the opposite direction.)

Um... you do know the modern City grew up around the Eurodollar market - connecting Arab savings with the American need for capital?

Nothing to do with the EU

The Eurodollar market was important for the City, because it brought the big US banks to the UK in size. But it wasn't - and has never been - dominant in the UK.

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it only became important in the late 70s when the Arab states started to have large numbers of petrodollars to invest, and the US was beginning to run a current account deficit and needed to import capital. Before the end of Bretton Woods, the US had no need to import capital.

Fuck B*sine*s

kle4 said:

Tim_B said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Hmm. I thought he was teachers pet?

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1010623496634945541?s=19

20bn? Where the hell are we going to find that? Even the magic money tree being shaken for the NHS only gets us so far.

.

One thing that has always intrigued me is policies like "We will spend an extra X million pounds on the NHS."

Not improve outpatient efficiency or reduce waiting times for operations, but merely spend the money untargeted. UNsurprisingly this leads to wasted money and no definitive improvements.

It's a fair point. Political problems always promise they will both spend more money and more effectively spend the money they already spend. Problem is that if you don't promise X more then you will be attacked for cutting even if you can be more efficient and effective with less. I don't see, in practical terms, how a party can get away without vague, untargeted promises - voters will probably punish their absence, even as they, we, react skeptically to the claims.

Mostly it looks as if the new money is just a recognition that the current Trust deficits are unsustainable, and will cover these. There may also be some capital for replacing with our and obsolete equipment.

In terms of efficiency and targets, these are set already. Just may have a slightly higher chance of meeting them.

Last week the winter bed crisis restarted at my Trust. Operations were cancelled for no beds, on midsummer day.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it only became important in the late 70s when the Arab states started to have large numbers of petrodollars to invest, and the US was beginning to run a current account deficit and needed to import capital. Before the end of Bretton Woods, the US had no need to import capital.

They weren't originally set up for the benefit of the US were they?

Bretton Woods itself meant that there were a lot of dollars outside America from the 50s onwards and Eurodollars were a good way of trading them, especially for communist nations which weren't on good terms with America.

I thought the Eurodollar market was mostly an efficient way for US corporations to fund themselves: either from European pension funds or - later - from the Arab states.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it only became important in the late 70s when the Arab states started to have large numbers of petrodollars to invest, and the US was beginning to run a current account deficit and needed to import capital. Before the end of Bretton Woods, the US had no need to import capital.

They weren't originally set up for the benefit of the US were they?

Bretton Woods itself meant that there were a lot of dollars outside America from the 50s onwards and Eurodollars were a good way of trading them, especially for communist nations which weren't on good terms with America.

I thought the Eurodollar market was mostly an efficient way for US corporations to fund themselves: either from European pension funds or - later - from the Arab states.

Not originally no. Originally it was a method of dollars being traded especially between two non-American entities easily and securely away from the auspices of the Fed.

It later became used by US corporations but the communists who risked their assets being seized if they were in America were major early users of the Eurodollar instead.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it only became important in the late 70s when the Arab states started to have large numbers of petrodollars to invest, and the US was beginning to run a current account deficit and needed to import capital. Before the end of Bretton Woods, the US had no need to import capital.

They weren't originally set up for the benefit of the US were they?

Bretton Woods itself meant that there were a lot of dollars outside America from the 50s onwards and Eurodollars were a good way of trading them, especially for communist nations which weren't on good terms with America.

I thought the Eurodollar market was mostly an efficient way for US corporations to fund themselves: either from European pension funds or - later - from the Arab states.

Not originally no. Originally it was a method of dollars being traded especially between two non-American entities easily and securely away from the auspices of the Fed.

It later became used by US corporations but the communists who risked their assets being seized if they were in America were major early users of the Eurodollar instead.

How big were the communist users? Surely they didn't have dollar assets to recycle?

Do you have a link so I can learn more.

Wiki has a good summary actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar#History

By 1970 (so before the petrodollar explosion) the Eurodollar market was already worth over a third of a trillion dollars.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

In the 50s and 60s when Eurodollar was set up the City was a backwater

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it only became important in the late 70s when the Arab states started to have large numbers of petrodollars to invest, and the US was beginning to run a current account deficit and needed to import capital. Before the end of Bretton Woods, the US had no need to import capital.

They weren't originally set up for the benefit of the US were they?

Bretton Woods itself meant that there were a lot of dollars outside America from the 50s onwards and Eurodollars were a good way of trading them, especially for communist nations which weren't on good terms with America.

I thought the Eurodollar market was mostly an efficient way for US corporations to fund themselves: either from European pension funds or - later - from the Arab states.

Not originally no. Originally it was a method of dollars being traded especially between two non-American entities easily and securely away from the auspices of the Fed.

It later became used by US corporations but the communists who risked their assets being seized if they were in America were major early users of the Eurodollar instead.

How big were the communist users? Surely they didn't have dollar assets to recycle?

Do you have a link so I can learn more.

I don't have a link a lot of this is going from memory from when I studied this sorry. The Marshall Plan combined with Bretton Woods meant that there was an unprecedented amount of dollars outside of America's jurisdiction which the Eurodollar market sprang up to cater for.

Banks like Midland Bank (now HSBC) could also pay higher interest rates than their American counterparts making them attractive to deposit with.

EDIT: Here's a paywalled link but the abstract is outside the paywall: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498398906933

And there's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar

I worked as an intern on the Solomon Brothers Eurodollar sales desk in 1994, and at the time, it was about linking together European savers with US corporates who needed dollars, and whose treasury function could borrow more cheaply this way.

welshowl said:

Has anybody ever not qualified in a four team tournament league on 6 points before?

In 1994, both Argentina and Belgium came third in their groups with six points. But the format at the time was top two from six groups plus four best third places. So they qualified, but wouldn't have under the post-1994 format.

rcs1000 said:

The future is all unmanned. There's a VC backed Anglo-Dutch company that has raised billions and has an incredibly impressive (largely autonomous) unmanned fighter plane. (And, unlike with Theranos, the guys involved are all industry veterans )

The acquisition and operating costs of UAS is now starting to outstrip legacy crewed platforms due to a) very high acquisition costs (Global Hawk is triple the price of F-35) b) consumption of expensive satellite bandwidth and c) very high crewing requirements (you need seperate mission and recovery elements).

It was Taranis not Theranos and that project was wound up into the DPOC program which Cameron cancelled in 2010. UK UAS efforts then centered on the Anglo French FCAS program which never got started. The French have a new FCAS which is a manned project in collaboration with the Germans and Spanish.

The US currently have four (that we know of) combat aircraft projects running: B-21, NGAD, F/A-XX and T-X. All four are manned.

That Anglo-Dutch VC funded bollocks will never sell a single airframe.