BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
mrfpb wrote:thecycleclinic wrote:Ultimately immigration levels are dictated by economic reality. while for a short while we could reduce immigration levels we also have an aging population and at some point we have have to let the numbers rise again. The amount of immigration we have at present (working age people mostly) is not holding the dependency ratio down. the dependency ratio is the number of under 15's and over 64's to the working age population. You can see why higher is not good for the public purse. In 2011 it was 52% and in 2015 it was 55% according to the world bank data. cut immigration it will rise faster and the pensions bill will have to be cut. Pensioners voting for leave I don't think realise that.
There was a debate on the affordability of public sector pensions a few years ago and someone put forward the argument that we should employ lots more people in the public sector as they would put in contributions to cover the gap. The person who put forward the argument wasn't being serious. Do you see the faulty logic there.
Your argument depends on immigrants coming and working, but not bringing their children (or having children) and leaving before they hit pension age. Doesn't that imply a level of control that the EU would never allow? That an independent UK would never allow? The care bill for the elderly is a massive issue and is not solved by hitching it to the immigration debate.
As I mentioned earlier my parents were immigrants from Ireland, they have retired back home where they draw the UK pensions they contributed to for so many years. My mum also has a very small US pension as she lived and worked there for a few years before moving on to the UK. So we are in the same place we were with public sector pensions.
The public sector pension deficit debate has not gone away!!! Just not many of us seem concerned about arguably the biggest threat to western democracies. People in the private sector with woefully inadequate pension provision are going to have to pay significantly more tax to provide public sector workers with much better pensions than they are going to get. Eventually politicians are going 5o have to grow some balls to deal with this.
Statistically immigrants are good as they tend to arrive at working age so you don't have to educate them and tend to leave before they get old and sick.
I hope your parents are voting in. uK pensioners living in the EU get the famous triple lock. Those outside don't. As somebody who disagrees with the triple lock I will see this as one small crumb of comfort if we lose out.0 -
Rick obviously those points have not occured to some in the brexit crowd. They (I means some brexit campaingners here not all) prefer aussie migrants to eastern europeans i.e migrants a bit like us. Except who likes the aussies? Just joking there by the way. some brexit campaigners though (the ones that never get heard) use different arguments but they seem to think that out of the EU britain will become this free trading nation which we ind of are already. I am not sure out of the EU there will be the great liberation of trade they hope for as it require the rest of the world to reciprocate. china for example is becoming more closed to foreign companies just look at the trouble apple has had in china this week.
Certainly Gove has said allowing eastern europeans in is discriminating against aussie, indian and canadian workers but do they really want to come here in the numbers we need. And do they want to wipe our bums when we are too old to do it for ourselves? I would not travel to aus to wipe an senile aussies bum I doubt they would do the same for us.
Also the leave campaign has an add where they say an aussie points system is humane. Oh my humane is what you talk about when sending cattle to be slaughtered.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.
As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress
When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view
It was a dumb idea born out of political hubris... JFK wanted to beat the Russians. Think I am wrong - when did somebody last go to the moon? What scientific advance came from the moon landing program?
Oh and the head of their program should have been in jail,or swinging from a noose0 -
Mr Goo wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mrfpb wrote:mrfpb wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:
Stufstuff
other stuff
I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick
I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering
I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.
Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.
FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.
OK have just found figures from 24th September 2015 and the UK fishing industry is worth £861,000,000. Whilst that is important to the 11,800 people working in that industry it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. The UK economy is worth nearly £3,000,000,000,000, which I think is 0.03%.
You may hate "the city" but they are the ones who fund everything
I guess my analogy here would be. A house is made of bricks and mortar with a roof. The roof being this wonderful utopian financial and banking system which is the Remain campaigns' main reason for staying in. Take away the individual bricks, fishing industry, steel etc etc, then you don't have a house to put a roof on.
That makes more sense. Rather than pouring billions into propping up legacy industries it may be more productive to use the money to invest in new industries and/or re-skilling the workers.
Therefore are you defining every industry that is not finance, banking and commerce centric a 'legacy industry'.
For example, the UK has a thriving micro brewing industry, which was heralded by the Rt Hon D Cameron during the week. We've brewed beer and ales for centuries. Your statement indicates that it should be abandoned and the treasury should stop propping this us with reductions in alcohol duty and wack on 50pence and kill it off.
By legacy I mean failing such as steel, fishing, shipbuilding etc. politically we decide to support them when I believe we should invest in the industries of tomorrow. As an example the uk has the second largest tidal falls in the world. We could invest in the tech to become
The world leader in tidal energy generation. Or put in rural broadband or rebuild technical colleges... As you know I could go on0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.
As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress
When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view
It was a dumb idea born out of political hubris... JFK wanted to beat the Russians. Think I am wrong - when did somebody last go to the moon? What scientific advance came from the moon landing program?
Oh and the head of their program should have been in jail,or swinging from a noose
I agree with you it was politically lead. But they would never have done it if it was just a financial decision. No one could list the benefits that would come out of this at the time. See any similarity to the arguments being made on the decision we'll be making on Thursday?thecycleclinic wrote:yes we would the ecomonic spinoff's from the apollo programe have been vast far exceeding the cost.. The same goes for the space programe in general. Satellite telly anyone? There are big economic gains from putting people in space. The payback happens though over time. All scientific research overall leads to payback. it is a myth to suggest otherwise.
No one could have predicted what the financial spin-offs would be. But the remain campaign is that we should not take these short term financial risks today as no-one can list what the future positives of leaving would are.0 -
-
Coopster the 1st wrote:
I agree with you it was politically lead. But they would never have done it if it was just a financial decision. No one could list the benefits that would come out of this at the time. See any similarity to the arguments being made on the decision we'll be making on Thursday?
No one could have predicted what the financial spin-offs would be. But the remain campaign is that we should not take these short term financial risks today as no-one can list what the future positives of leaving would are.
yep going to the Moon and leaving EU ....... mmmmmmm
No one knew the long term positives of Apollo program but the USA was nt risking its future prosperity either, it was far and away the richest nation on earth and in a super power struggle with the Soviets.
As you say no one knows the future positives of leaving as they are unknown and as the OUTs have no plan A, let alone a plan B, then it is all pie in the sky.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.
As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress
When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view
It was a dumb idea born out of political hubris... JFK wanted to beat the Russians. Think I am wrong - when did somebody last go to the moon? What scientific advance came from the moon landing program?
Oh and the head of their program should have been in jail,or swinging from a noose
I agree with you it was politically lead. But they would never have done it if it was just a financial decision. No one could list the benefits that would come out of this at the time. See any similarity to the arguments being made on the decision we'll be making on Thursday?thecycleclinic wrote:yes we would the ecomonic spinoff's from the apollo programe have been vast far exceeding the cost.. The same goes for the space programe in general. Satellite telly anyone? There are big economic gains from putting people in space. The payback happens though over time. All scientific research overall leads to payback. it is a myth to suggest otherwise.
No one could have predicted what the financial spin-offs would be. But the remain campaign is that we should not take these short term financial risks today as no-one can list what the future positives of leaving would are.
I really can not find any benefits other that a mention of high def photographic mapping and that was on the NASA website.
Now the cost in today's money is £100bn so over 10 years is £10bn per annum. Now there are 27 million uk households so let's take that to 25 million to exclude the very poor (and help my maths) that means that you are chipping in £400 a year for the next decade. Would you really write a cheque for £4,000 on behalf of your household to put Brit on the moon?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.
As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress
When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view
It was a dumb idea born out of political hubris... JFK wanted to beat the Russians. Think I am wrong - when did somebody last go to the moon? What scientific advance came from the moon landing program?
Oh and the head of their program should have been in jail,or swinging from a noose
Here are a few benefits. It's from NASA, so there might be some exaggeration, but I'd say these technologies are pretty useful. Those are just the direct benefits. There is also the indirect benefits of inspiring young people to go into science and engineering.
And it's spelt "programme". Unless you're trying to be all cosmopolitan again. :P0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Rick
Cannot find your original post in response to my remarks about immigration. At no point I believe did I actually point a finger at you and threaten to send the boot boys around to knock down your door? And what the f**k has speaking the Queen's English got to do with your argument.
So perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. The speed at which migration has taken place across the UK and Europe in the last couple of decades, particularly to the founding states of the now EU, has outstripped the capacity to cope with their impact. Therefore it is bound to have changed the demographic makeup of thousands of villages, towns and cities. Many indigenous residents (including older generation immigrants) may feel that their services are diminished due to resources being diverted to cope with the new arrivals be they from Eastern Europe or from those fleeing conflict. Certainly the mass influx into Germany will only serve to ferment a rise in 'right wing' activism and this should come as no surprise to anyone.
There is no denying that basic infrastructure services within the UK are pretty much stretched and in some cases broken. I concede that some of this will be down to the ageing population. But surely common sense would dictate that putting a brake (not stop) on non organic population growth would be sensible, until such time as services can cope adequately.
Queue the put downs.
Let me get this right. In a situation where the heads of public services are concerned about the adverse impact of Brexit on their ability to recruit, you think the solution is to limit the pool in which they can recruit from?
Has it occurred to people that shrinking public services has coincided with the biggest reduction in state spending on public services since 1930??
Has it occurred to anyone that while economists and industrialists have been complaining for 30 years that there is not enough investment in public infrastructure to keep up with future demand?
Has it not occurred to anyone that the vast majority of migration creates wealth and jobs?
It's curious you refer to Eastern European immigrants. Why make the distinction between them and me?
The problem is that immigration and a larger population brings benefits and drawbacks. You need a government to explain to the British people what these are, and they also need to clearly state what they are going to do to maximise the positive impacts and minimise any negative impacts. And they haven't done that. So although I am certainly not opposed to immigration or immigrants, I can see why people are very frustrated with the fact that the government is letting millions of people into the country without a proper plan to deal with this increase.0 -
finchy wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.
As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress
When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view
It was a dumb idea born out of political hubris... JFK wanted to beat the Russians. Think I am wrong - when did somebody last go to the moon? What scientific advance came from the moon landing program?
Oh and the head of their program should have been in jail,or swinging from a noose
Here are a few benefits. It's from NASA, so there might be some exaggeration, but I'd say these technologies are pretty useful. Those are just the direct benefits. There is also the indirect benefits of inspiring young people to go into science and engineering.
And it's spelt "programme". Unless you're trying to be all cosmopolitan again. :P
If those are the benefits then it kind of proves my point.
Work with too many Yanks - I have a shortage of "z" and an abundance of "u"0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:If those are the benefits then it kind of proves my point.
I guess you wouldn't say that if you were being kept alive by those technologies.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:I really can not find any benefits other that a mention of high def photographic mapping and that was on the NASA website.
Now the cost in today's money is £100bn so over 10 years is £10bn per annum. Now there are 27 million uk households so let's take that to 25 million to exclude the very poor (and help my maths) that means that you are chipping in £400 a year for the next decade. Would you really write a cheque for £4,000 on behalf of your household to put Brit on the moon?
Think of it as the space programme as a whole, not just putting someone on the moon.
Just off the top of my head, Satellite TV, GPS navigation systems (Satnav), Satellite communications as benefits? This has created whole new industries, many that would never have been predicted by financial institutions evaluating the cost of the space programme. I'm sure there are many more developments and industries to be found with a short time on a search engine.
But this whole thing would have been a non-starter if decided purely on economics.0 -
finchy wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:If those are the benefits then it kind of proves my point.
I guess you wouldn't say that if you were being kept alive by those technologies.
True but I like to think I would see the bigger picture and see how saving £100bn and my early death were good for the public finances.
Actually when you see how much it costs to build a railway line that shaves 15 mins off the trip to Birmingham it seems like a real bargain.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:finchy wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:If those are the benefits then it kind of proves my point.
I guess you wouldn't say that if you were being kept alive by those technologies.
True but I like to think I would see the bigger picture and see how saving £100bn and my early death were good for the public finances.
Actually when you see how much it costs to build a railway line that shaves 15 mins off the trip to Birmingham it seems like a real bargain.
Are you, by any chance, a human-ant hybrid? Anyway, it wouldn't save £100bn, because all of those technologies which were invented have commercial value.0 -
Meanwhile, while I fret about a leave vote giving agency and a mandate to far right populist nativism (since that seems to be the main thrust of the leave campaign with some effect) bodies like the IMF still see the Brexit as economically very costly to the UK.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:bodies like the IMF still see the Brexit as economically very costly to the UK.
I'm struggling to see how you can continue to base your vote on the forecast of these economic experts? Have a read of the following link:
https://next.ft.com/content/14e323ee-e6 ... 144feabdc0 *
A snippet pasted below:
"An astonishing record – of complete failure"In the 2001 issue of the International Journal of Forecasting, an economist from the International Monetary Fund, Prakash Loungani, published a survey of the accuracy of economic forecasts throughout the 1990s. He reached two conclusions. The first was that forecasts are all much the same. There was little to choose between those produced by the IMF and the World Bank, and those from private sector forecasters. The second conclusion was that the predictive record of economists was terrible. Loungani wrote: “The record of failure to predict recessions is virtually unblemished.”
Now Loungani, with a colleague, Hites Ahir, has returned to the topic in the wake of the economic crisis. The record of failure remains impressive. There were 77 countries under consideration, and 49 of them were in recession in 2009. Economists – as reflected in the averages published in a report called Consensus Forecasts – had not called a single one of these recessions by April 2008.
This is extraordinary. Bear in mind that this is not the famous complaint from the Queen that nobody saw the financial crisis coming. The crisis was firmly established when these forecasts were made. The Financial Times had been writing exhaustively about the “credit crunch” since the previous summer. Northern Rock had been nationalised in the UK and Bear Stearns had collapsed in the US. It did not take a genius to see that trouble was on the way for the wider economy.
More astonishing still, when Loungani extends the deadline for forecasting a recession to September 2008, the consensus remained that not a single economy would fall into recession in 2009
* If this FT link does not work google "An astonishing record – of complete failure"0 -
Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
Ask an economist what a credit crunch does to an economy and they'd have explained more or less exactly what happened.
What isn't in their remit is deep knowledge of niche esoteric fixed income collateralised debt obligations, mortgage backed securities and bad lending practices.
Nor is it their job to know what will cause a Brexit, BUT they can tell you what effect it will have.
If you seriously think that they ought to predict the timing of recessions you DONT UNDERSTAND BASIC ECONOMICS. No surprise if you're a Brexiter.0 -
If your Dr guesses your weight wrong when you eat 10,000 calories and don't move every day, will you not believe him when he says you'll get fat and that won't be healthy for you?0
-
If you keep drinking a bottle of vodka a day and your Dr says, stop or you'll die next week and you kept drinking and survived the next fortnight, do you carry on drinking?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
Ask an economist what a credit crunch does to an economy and they'd have explained more or less exactly what happened.
What isn't in their remit is deep knowledge of niche esoteric fixed income collateralised debt obligations, mortgage backed securities and bad lending practices.
Nor is it their job to know what will cause a Brexit, BUT they can tell you what effect it will have.
If you seriously think that they ought to predict the timing of recessions you DONT UNDERSTAND BASIC ECONOMICS. No surprise if you're a Brexiter.
you dont need to be an economist to figure out that striking new trade deals, rebuilding a shattered manufacturing base and at the same time, keeping the markets stable, keeping companies in UK instead of going to EU and inward investors on side is not going to easy and will take years if at all.
what happens to the UKs economy whilst all this is going on? and if some or all of this fails, what then? IMF bail out ? no thanks.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
From today's report which was reported on the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36561720Its most adverse Brexit scenario predicts 2019 growth 5.6% below what it would otherwise have been, and also a drop in GDP in 2017 of 0.8%, which an IMF official described as a "recession".
Sounds like they are predicting a recession to me. So are you discrediting their report or proving that you have no idea what you are talking about?
Cannot wait for you to explain this
0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
From today's report which was reported on the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36561720Its most adverse Brexit scenario predicts 2019 growth 5.6% below what it would otherwise have been, and also a drop in GDP in 2017 of 0.8%, which an IMF official described as a "recession".
Sounds like they are predicting a recession to me. So are you discrediting their report or proving that you have no idea what you are talking about?
Cannot wait for you to explain this
you seem to not understand what he said...How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
it's in english
have another gomy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
And another one. This time from the UK treasury and announced by George Osborne on 23rd May 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36355564Leaving the European Union would tip the UK into a year-long recession, with up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years, Chancellor George Osborne says.
So you are saying predicting a recession is impossible but you're voting based the predictions of these experts
I don't need to bring this down to your level of personal attacks but I do worry about your clarity of thinking 0 -
sungod wrote:you seem to not understand what he said...How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
it's in english
have another go
I thought he said they were impossible to predict. Yes, reading it, he did.
Did you read my link to the FT article?
Despite the recession having already started they did not predict it. That would be because they are impossible to predict0 -
sungod wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Oh my god.
How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
From today's report which was reported on the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36561720Its most adverse Brexit scenario predicts 2019 growth 5.6% below what it would otherwise have been, and also a drop in GDP in 2017 of 0.8%, which an IMF official described as a "recession".
Sounds like they are predicting a recession to me. So are you discrediting their report or proving that you have no idea what you are talking about?
Cannot wait for you to explain this
you seem to not understand what he said...How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.
If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.
it's in english
have another go
To be honest Risk has said enough by discrediting these so called experts. He has confirmed that we should note vote based on the remains economic case as predicting recessions is impossible0 -
surrey Commutor. The list of technical advances from the moon programme are too long to list. PTFE is one, CAT scanners, cordless hand tools................... NASA had to invent the wheel to go to the moon and we are still benefiting now.
Oh computor technology took a leap forward not to mention materials technology. New insulation was developed and fancy lens technology.
If you cannot see the value in big projects like this you need to educate some more on the history of technology. Technical advances come incrementally and then sometimes (mostly due to war or just to beat the russians) huge leaps come all at once.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
Also like weather forecasts, economic forecasts have to be taken together. You run a bunch of simulations and see how it plays out. You get a range of outcomes going for one in the middle then seems fair enough. The thing is the range of models range from the down right disastrous to the mildly positive. So the mid ground is mildly negative. It is not that difficult to interpret.
Also recessions are hard to predict a bit like earthquakes. You know they will happen. You can spot the signs when and where one might happen and hedge your bets. The recession might happen where you think but exactly when is anyones guess then again it could start somewhere leftfield and catch everyone by surprise. However if you put the right starting conditions in you can see a recession happen. It is just that it is impossible to predict when bubbles burst as that means predicting when confidence in something is lost. Confidence is a fickle thing. Hence predicting recession is difficult you just know they will happen and what kind of scenario's trigger them.
Just like the weather the starting data is often faulty and therefore predictions of what happens in the future tends to be off. Which is why you take a number of models run on slightly different starting data to get a better picture of what might actually happen. these models are a guide but the numbers should not be taken literally i.e bad form to say people will be £4300 worse of by what ever date that was than if we stayed in the EU. I know some people want certainty but it should be explained there is no such thing only degrees of uncertainty.
Stats can be used to inform or confuse. All to often the confuse.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
So, to help your imagination, to the economist th Brexit is the mortgage backed security subprime crisis for Britain in 2016, only this time they can see the cause because it's a referendum, rather than an obscure type of finance, which they couldn't see.
So if in 2006 you were to tell an economist that there is a big problem in banking and you asked them what will happen if there is a credit crunch, they'd have said you'll get a recession. And they would be right.
In 2016, they're saying if you have Brexit, you'll get a recession.
They're not peering into a crystal ball. They have a lot of rigour.0 -
Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?
It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.0
