LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

I am struggling with the connection of Mary Poppins and sh!tting the bed. 🤣🤣🤣

Haha. Kid gets taken to his Dad's bank where he works, gets a creepy lecture by old white men on investment and investment banking, kid gets frightened, demands his money back in a hysterical way and in so doing causes a run on the bank.

rick_chasey

They also reference the role London has in the colonial world in that song too, it has it all.

Women's lib, class conflict and reconciliation, betting, masculinity, fatherhood, family challenges, existentialism, tolerance, socialism, capitalism, the thing has it all.

bompington

rick_chasey said:

They also reference the role London has in the colonial world in that song too, it has it all.

Women's lib, class conflict and reconciliation, betting, masculinity, fatherhood, family challenges, existentialism, tolerance, socialism, capitalism, the thing has it all.

It doesn't have it all - for a start, there's absolutely no reference in that song (or any other in Mary Poppins for that matter) about whether rim or disc brakes are better.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

The irony is that the Conservatives could do a lot more without spooking the markets because the markets know they hate it. Look at how much they have already done without shifting the dial. Labour just couldn't because they're Labour

It feels like they are just too eager to get back to austerity because it's what they do, even though it's not the right time for it.

I think the issue is that it's so transparently not austerity when the promised infrastructure spending dwarfs the savings that they claim are needed.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey why all the talk of having a £40bn hole to fill with increased taxes, why wouldn’t they just borrow more.

If your answer is that yes they should, does that mean they that for them MMT is a fig leaf?

So I'm not a purist MMT guy. I see the argument but I wouldn't run policy that way if I was Sunak.

I just seem quite extreme compared to you because you're a long way along that spectrum.

I do ultimately believe at some point you have to pay for spending through taxation. There are various reasons for why running a deficit is OK, and there are short term reasons for why you should be spending well beyond what the tax receipts are, and they all orientate around maintaining growth or protecting future growth (from economic scarring during downturns etc).

Where I differ from MMT types is I do believe that if you want to keep borrowing costs low, you need to show a level of prudence, and I don't think aiming for full employment is a practical target (though I think there are undervalued advantages of having a hot labour market, but they make markets more egalitarian and we know brits hate that). The reason why EM countries can't borrow like the UK can is because it has not demonstrated said prudence.

So I understand those arguments. I just think both parties, but the Tories in particular, get the timing 180 degrees wrong. They do literally the opposite of what you should. And they do that, because they are, despite what they seem, not following economic advice and consensus (as we have seen with Brexit) but are using economic rationale for purely political decisions which aim to keep the nation divided just like you see over the pond.

Ultimately I think the cost of borrowing is, compared to other options, a really helpful indicator for where UK gov't spending should be.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Whilst I am sure I will never change my mind I am interested in the thought processes and it seems that one of the reasons why it makes no sense is that it is being used as cover for political expediency by people who then make contradictory comments.

Why wouldn't the BofE keep buying gilts? that way they control the level of available funds and costs of financing?

If the BofE buys £10bn of gilts with made up money what happens when the gilt falls due? does the Treasury pay the bearer? and if so the BofE now sits on a £10bn (plus coupons) by what mechanism does it transfer the money back to the Treasury?

There's currently £890bn of gilts owned by the BoE. I believe the thinking is that when they fall due, they will be rolled over in some way, so the BoE's holdings will remain the same.

There was an agreement in 2012 that the BoE would hand back the interest received on its gilts. No idea if this continued.

I asked the economist that Rick quoted above whether he could see the gilts being written off, but the question was misinterpreted as unwinding, which he couldn't see happening at least for a very long time.

Anyway, I would just accept that the UK's debt is overstated by £890bn.

cheers for the explanation - why would they not keep going and zero the debt?

The classic answer is that QE might result in high inflation, so it would be a weapon in the armoury of the BoE to fight this (unwinding the QE). I wonder whether politically it sounds better to have a higher debt. Another reason is that it is uncharted waters, so no one knows and there is no real advantage to writing them off, so it's a sleeping dog that is best left to lie.

I more meant zero the debt by the Bank buying it all.

MMT is that you control inflation by raising taxes.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey why all the talk of having a £40bn hole to fill with increased taxes, why wouldn’t they just borrow more.

If your answer is that yes they should, does that mean they that for them MMT is a fig leaf?

So I'm not a purist MMT guy. I see the argument but I wouldn't run policy that way if I was Sunak.

I just seem quite extreme compared to you because you're a long way along that spectrum.

I do ultimately believe at some point you have to pay for spending through taxation. There are various reasons for why running a deficit is OK, and there are short term reasons for why you should be spending well beyond what the tax receipts are, and they all orientate around maintaining growth or protecting future growth (from economic scarring during downturns etc).

Where I differ from MMT types is I do believe that if you want to keep borrowing costs low, you need to show a level of prudence, and I don't think aiming for full employment is a practical target (though I think there are undervalued advantages of having a hot labour market, but they make markets more egalitarian and we know brits hate that). The reason why EM countries can't borrow like the UK can is because it has not demonstrated said prudence.

So I understand those arguments. I just think both parties, but the Tories in particular, get the timing 180 degrees wrong. They do literally the opposite of what you should. And they do that, because they are, despite what they seem, not following economic advice and consensus (as we have seen with Brexit) but are using economic rationale for purely political decisions which aim to keep the nation divided just like you see over the pond.

Ultimately I think the cost of borrowing is, compared to other options, a really helpful indicator for where UK gov't spending should be.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Whilst I am sure I will never change my mind I am interested in the thought processes and it seems that one of the reasons why it makes no sense is that it is being used as cover for political expediency by people who then make contradictory comments.

Why wouldn't the BofE keep buying gilts? that way they control the level of available funds and costs of financing?

If the BofE buys £10bn of gilts with made up money what happens when the gilt falls due? does the Treasury pay the bearer? and if so the BofE now sits on a £10bn (plus coupons) by what mechanism does it transfer the money back to the Treasury?

There's currently £890bn of gilts owned by the BoE. I believe the thinking is that when they fall due, they will be rolled over in some way, so the BoE's holdings will remain the same.

There was an agreement in 2012 that the BoE would hand back the interest received on its gilts. No idea if this continued.

I asked the economist that Rick quoted above whether he could see the gilts being written off, but the question was misinterpreted as unwinding, which he couldn't see happening at least for a very long time.

Anyway, I would just accept that the UK's debt is overstated by £890bn.

cheers for the explanation - why would they not keep going and zero the debt?

The classic answer is that QE might result in high inflation, so it would be a weapon in the armoury of the BoE to fight this (unwinding the QE). I wonder whether politically it sounds better to have a higher debt. Another reason is that it is uncharted waters, so no one knows and there is no real advantage to writing them off, so it's a sleeping dog that is best left to lie.

If I understand it right, there is also a level of smoke and mirrors here. It's all OK until people collectively decide it isn't and they panic. So if you do it forever to crazy amounts at some point enough people will sh!t the bed.

(Mary Poppins has had an oversized influence of my understanding of the world)

Now this is where I get totally confused. You are now agreeing with me that it is all bowlocks caused by wishful thinking and when somebody points out that Mary Poppins has shat the bed we are snookered.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey why all the talk of having a £40bn hole to fill with increased taxes, why wouldn’t they just borrow more.

If your answer is that yes they should, does that mean they that for them MMT is a fig leaf?

So I'm not a purist MMT guy. I see the argument but I wouldn't run policy that way if I was Sunak.

I just seem quite extreme compared to you because you're a long way along that spectrum.

I do ultimately believe at some point you have to pay for spending through taxation. There are various reasons for why running a deficit is OK, and there are short term reasons for why you should be spending well beyond what the tax receipts are, and they all orientate around maintaining growth or protecting future growth (from economic scarring during downturns etc).

Where I differ from MMT types is I do believe that if you want to keep borrowing costs low, you need to show a level of prudence, and I don't think aiming for full employment is a practical target (though I think there are undervalued advantages of having a hot labour market, but they make markets more egalitarian and we know brits hate that). The reason why EM countries can't borrow like the UK can is because it has not demonstrated said prudence.

So I understand those arguments. I just think both parties, but the Tories in particular, get the timing 180 degrees wrong. They do literally the opposite of what you should. And they do that, because they are, despite what they seem, not following economic advice and consensus (as we have seen with Brexit) but are using economic rationale for purely political decisions which aim to keep the nation divided just like you see over the pond.

Ultimately I think the cost of borrowing is, compared to other options, a really helpful indicator for where UK gov't spending should be.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Whilst I am sure I will never change my mind I am interested in the thought processes and it seems that one of the reasons why it makes no sense is that it is being used as cover for political expediency by people who then make contradictory comments.

Why wouldn't the BofE keep buying gilts? that way they control the level of available funds and costs of financing?

If the BofE buys £10bn of gilts with made up money what happens when the gilt falls due? does the Treasury pay the bearer? and if so the BofE now sits on a £10bn (plus coupons) by what mechanism does it transfer the money back to the Treasury?

There's currently £890bn of gilts owned by the BoE. I believe the thinking is that when they fall due, they will be rolled over in some way, so the BoE's holdings will remain the same.

There was an agreement in 2012 that the BoE would hand back the interest received on its gilts. No idea if this continued.

I asked the economist that Rick quoted above whether he could see the gilts being written off, but the question was misinterpreted as unwinding, which he couldn't see happening at least for a very long time.

Anyway, I would just accept that the UK's debt is overstated by £890bn.

cheers for the explanation - why would they not keep going and zero the debt?

The classic answer is that QE might result in high inflation, so it would be a weapon in the armoury of the BoE to fight this (unwinding the QE). I wonder whether politically it sounds better to have a higher debt. Another reason is that it is uncharted waters, so no one knows and there is no real advantage to writing them off, so it's a sleeping dog that is best left to lie.

If I understand it right, there is also a level of smoke and mirrors here. It's all OK until people collectively decide it isn't and they panic. So if you do it forever to crazy amounts at some point enough people will sh!t the bed.

(Mary Poppins has had an oversized influence of my understanding of the world)

Now this is where I get totally confused. You are now agreeing with me that it is all bowlocks caused by wishful thinking and when somebody points out that Mary Poppins has shat the bed we are snookered.

Isn't that just a parallel of our political and other systems? It all works so long as everyone agrees to act within certain boundaries and conventions, and trusts that on the whole others will do the same. It's only when someone steps outside those boundaries that we realise there isn't a whole lot stopping them if they brazen it out. It all exists so long as we all believe in it.

And now I've brought in Peter Pan as well.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey why all the talk of having a £40bn hole to fill with increased taxes, why wouldn’t they just borrow more.

If your answer is that yes they should, does that mean they that for them MMT is a fig leaf?

So I'm not a purist MMT guy. I see the argument but I wouldn't run policy that way if I was Sunak.

I just seem quite extreme compared to you because you're a long way along that spectrum.

I do ultimately believe at some point you have to pay for spending through taxation. There are various reasons for why running a deficit is OK, and there are short term reasons for why you should be spending well beyond what the tax receipts are, and they all orientate around maintaining growth or protecting future growth (from economic scarring during downturns etc).

Where I differ from MMT types is I do believe that if you want to keep borrowing costs low, you need to show a level of prudence, and I don't think aiming for full employment is a practical target (though I think there are undervalued advantages of having a hot labour market, but they make markets more egalitarian and we know brits hate that). The reason why EM countries can't borrow like the UK can is because it has not demonstrated said prudence.

So I understand those arguments. I just think both parties, but the Tories in particular, get the timing 180 degrees wrong. They do literally the opposite of what you should. And they do that, because they are, despite what they seem, not following economic advice and consensus (as we have seen with Brexit) but are using economic rationale for purely political decisions which aim to keep the nation divided just like you see over the pond.

Ultimately I think the cost of borrowing is, compared to other options, a really helpful indicator for where UK gov't spending should be.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Whilst I am sure I will never change my mind I am interested in the thought processes and it seems that one of the reasons why it makes no sense is that it is being used as cover for political expediency by people who then make contradictory comments.

Why wouldn't the BofE keep buying gilts? that way they control the level of available funds and costs of financing?

If the BofE buys £10bn of gilts with made up money what happens when the gilt falls due? does the Treasury pay the bearer? and if so the BofE now sits on a £10bn (plus coupons) by what mechanism does it transfer the money back to the Treasury?

There's currently £890bn of gilts owned by the BoE. I believe the thinking is that when they fall due, they will be rolled over in some way, so the BoE's holdings will remain the same.

There was an agreement in 2012 that the BoE would hand back the interest received on its gilts. No idea if this continued.

I asked the economist that Rick quoted above whether he could see the gilts being written off, but the question was misinterpreted as unwinding, which he couldn't see happening at least for a very long time.

Anyway, I would just accept that the UK's debt is overstated by £890bn.

cheers for the explanation - why would they not keep going and zero the debt?

The classic answer is that QE might result in high inflation, so it would be a weapon in the armoury of the BoE to fight this (unwinding the QE). I wonder whether politically it sounds better to have a higher debt. Another reason is that it is uncharted waters, so no one knows and there is no real advantage to writing them off, so it's a sleeping dog that is best left to lie.

I more meant zero the debt by the Bank buying it all.

MMT is that you control inflation by raising taxes.

There are plenty of reasons why it is useful for a country to have government debt e.g. a risk free rate for the markets to use. Ignoring that though, what you propose would just cause lots of inflation, devalue the pound and be a step in the direction of the Zim dollar.

rick_chasey

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

Yesterday you agreed it was madness

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

Yesterday you agreed it was madness

Oh SC!

You must know confidence is a part of banking. Else runs on a bank wouldn’t be a thing

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

Yesterday you agreed it was madness

Oh SC!

You must know confidence is a part of banking. Else runs on a bank wouldn’t be a thing

But you agree with me that it can only end one way. Our difference of opinion is that you think we should max out the credit card and party on. Strangely as I think we have passed the point of no return I might come to join the party.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

rick_chasey

You think they won’t be paying for the economic scaring instead?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

You think they won’t be paying for the economic scaring instead?

Job opportunities will recover in time. I think they are screwed either way and will blame the oldies for it. You will be one of the oldies by then. 😉
My genuine greatest fear is history repeating itself 100 years on. Best enjoy the roaring Twenties!

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

Future generations have always paid for today's public borrowing. Nobody even realised that their taxes were still paying off a nearly 200-year-old debt from the abolition of slavery until it was pointed out to them.

rick_chasey

Sure but the scaring is compounded.

For every year you have out you lose multiples of that loss over your lifetime.

Multiply that over the economy and that’s a lot of taxable revenue lost.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

Future generations have always paid for today's public borrowing. Nobody even realised that their taxes were still paying off a nearly 200-year-old debt from the abolition of slavery until it was pointed out to them.

I am fully aware. Some might not be, but I am. What I am pointing out is that Rick is happy to ignore the debt while not worrying about the future. There are issues that have to be addressed but not taking the future into account is reckless.
That it is coming from someone who has previously moaned about oldies passing their problems on is quite ironic.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

Future generations have always paid for today's public borrowing. Nobody even realised that their taxes were still paying off a nearly 200-year-old debt from the abolition of slavery until it was pointed out to them.

I am fully aware. Some might not be, but I am. What I am pointing out is that Rick is happy to ignore the debt while not worrying about the future. There are issues that have to be addressed but not taking the future into account is reckless.
That it is coming from someone who has previously moaned about oldies passing their problems on is quite ironic.

I don’t know how I can make it clearer, *the future cost of not borrowing and not helping solve the current economic crisis is by any normal measure higher than any reasonable or likely cost of said debt in the future*

It’s not either or.

rick_chasey

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

There are other ways to extinguish a fire other than using water.
Anyway, crack on. Won't be my problem.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

Future generations have always paid for today's public borrowing. Nobody even realised that their taxes were still paying off a nearly 200-year-old debt from the abolition of slavery until it was pointed out to them.

Future generations tend to use the assets of the past too.

coopster_the_1st

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

There are other ways to extinguish a fire other than using water.
Anyway, crack on. Won't be my problem.

I'm guessing you are alluding to retirement as the means that you have of getting out of paying for this economic destruction?

I'm am roughly 15 years out from that being an option but I will be exploring the options so that the burden to pay for this won't be on me.

Ultimately it will be the poor and the young who end up paying the most for the economic destruction caused by the government.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW in the economist today: debt interest paid in 2020 is £17bn less than 2019 despite the monster borrowing

The worry isn't what we are paying now, it is what we may be paying in 5 or 10 years. Your confidence is obviously higher than others though and nobody's opinion will change.

It’ll be much higher if you decide to not put the fire out now.

The fighter plane analogy is a good one.

Why cause serious damage now, which will impact tax receipts in the future for something they may not even happen?

Fair enough. But consider this. I won't be the one paying for it. It will be you and future generations.

Future generations have always paid for today's public borrowing. Nobody even realised that their taxes were still paying off a nearly 200-year-old debt from the abolition of slavery until it was pointed out to them.

Future generations tend to use the assets of the past too.

Indeed.

rick_chasey

coopster_the_1st said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

There are other ways to extinguish a fire other than using water.
Anyway, crack on. Won't be my problem.

I'm guessing you are alluding to retirement as the means that you have of getting out of paying for this economic destruction?

I'm am roughly 15 years out from that being an option but I will be exploring the options so that the burden to pay for this won't be on me.

Ultimately it will be the poor and the young who end up paying the most for the economic destruction caused by brexit

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/icelandicecon/status/1332680706045009920?s=21

👍🏻👍🏻

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

You chose to conflate unavoidable debt with all debt. Pre-pandemic Boris opted to run a £60bn deficit, or 3% of the Uk economy so growing the debt by any measure, since then he has chosen to widen the debt still further on vanity projects and electoral bribery.

Whilst I have made no secret of my belief that Boris is a cvnt of the highest order uniquely unsuited to the job of PM, I also do not believe that any alternative PM will significantly reduce borrowing until forced to.

For all your analogies you ignore the fact that he makes “controversial” announcements to save £4bn whilst chucking away hundreds of billions with the other hand. He is either mugging you off or implicitly acknowledging that he will never even attempt to narrow the deficit

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Worrying about the debt now is a bit like worrying about the persistent damp problem when the house is on fire.

You’re gonna have to douse the house in water and soak everything but you won’t have a house to douse if you don’t put the fire out.

There are other ways to extinguish a fire other than using water.
Anyway, crack on. Won't be my problem.

I'm guessing you are alluding to retirement as the means that you have of getting out of paying for this economic destruction?

I'm am roughly 15 years out from that being an option but I will be exploring the options so that the burden to pay for this won't be on me.

Ultimately it will be the poor and the young who end up paying the most for the economic destruction

caused by brexit

And while you continue to believe that you will consciously or subconsciously make future financial decisions that will make you and your family poorer.

And the responsibility for this will be all your own