[Merged]Brexit stuff

[CretinWatcher]

On the contrary, I'd suggest that you feel particularly bleak about the outlook because your feelings are hurt. Let's not pretend that you're taking a dispassionate view of the mixed economic reports at this impossibly early stage during our ongoing non-departure from the EU. As Warner (a Bremainer) has argued, it's more important for some Bremainers that their opinions are validated. Given the BoE survey versus the PMIs, you'd take the PMIs as they paint the more negative picture. Given the depreciation of Sterling and its impacts on the current account, you'd focus on the impact of short-term uncertainty (current account negative) and ignore the elasticity of long-term demand for British exports or British earnings on overseas investments (current account positive). Glass half-empty, wherever possible. Diddums

To be fair to you you did say there would be a significant short term impact with Brexit, something the more moronic are denying in spite of the growing evidence.
Maybe you could also indicate why you think the long term impact Will be positive given the small manufacturing industry, large and growing deficits, low productivity and high debt economy we have at present.
I don't believe in miracles.

[shaunbhoy]

I don't believe in miracles.

Neither do I. That is why you are forever doomed to be a peabrained dullard with no more right to live on God's good earth than a weasel!!

[GB9]

You say this quite often, but never offer an explanation of why you think the poster is wrong. Do you think it right to withhold the benefits your your wisdom from us?

In this particular case, the notion that an economy is 10% smaller in 3 weeks, is ridiculous. And then compared to peers? Means what exactly? Has everyone else had a massive boost?

Although my favourite is still the claim that Cable has fallen 30%, although to get that figure you need to consider where it might have been (a complete guess) if the vote had been different and then work out the drop from there. What bollox.

[jamesbrown]

To be fair to you you did say there would be a significant short term impact with Brexit, something the more moronic are denying in spite of the growing evidence.
Maybe you could also indicate why you think the long term impact Will be positive given the small manufacturing industry, large and growing deficits, low productivity and high debt economy we have at present.
I don't believe in miracles.

All of these problems either emerged or accelerated during the period that we've been within the EU. The connection between these things is complicated and arguable. As is the economic outlook both pre- and post-Brexit. Anyone, I'd suggest, that refuses to accept the potential benefits of Brexit in the long-term, many of which are not economic, is overly emotional about the EU, as is someone that refuses to accept the potential costs in the short-term (overly emotional about the UK). I'd freely admit that some of the short-term costs were guaranteed (e.g. depreciation of Sterling), whereas many of the long-term benefits are contingent on how we (and the rest of the EU) now position ourselves. But, let's be clear that the status quo was not working for a significant majority in the UK, and the EU has been a factor in that, both directly (e.g. unfettered free movement) and indirectly (e.g. as an excuse for HMG to ignore the big questions).

The reason that the OECD, IMF, BoE, and countless other economic thinktanks exagerate the costs of leaving and overstate the benefits of remaining is that, fundamentally, they lack imagination; more specifically, they lack a broad imagination. They have neither the desire nor the spirit to re-imagine some of the fundamental assumptions that have emerged during a period of unfettered globalisation; assumptions about trade, identity, the distribution of wealth and the value of things that are produced and consumed. This is why, for example, central banks wholeheartedly embrace mechanisms that increase money supply while fully understanding that capital appreciation reinforces the worst excesses of globalisation and economic inequality. In the short-term, some of these excesses will be reinforced by Brexit. In the long-term, it depends how we respond; where and how we invest to offset the risks posed by Brexit and whether and how we show the foresight to reform.

This may all sound rather Jeremy Corbyn, but it isn't. I'm a strong believer in a parliamentary democracy that represents a majority. I could opine on your technical points about debt and productivity (I might still ), but consider this for a moment. As things stand, parliamentary democracies across the West are becoming increasingly detached from their electorates, and the potentially profound (social, economic, existential) consequences of this detachment - most purely espoused by the EU - are becoming increasingly clear from the politicians that these electorates are now seeking to promote. Unless this is reversed, by making politicians and institutions more representative - more local - no amount of productivity growth, QE or GDP is going to address the existential questions that are now being posed. You have a technocratic world-view. This is why you focus on the current account, productivity, debt/deficit, and so on. All of these things are important, but they are not the only important things. You either ignore or dismiss non-technocratic arguments as "stupid", "moronic", "cretinous" (choose your profanity ). You are an accomplished technocrat, I'm sure, but you appear to suffer a dearth of imagination that is common among technocrats.

[NotAllThere]

But, let's be clear that the status quo was not working for a significant majority in the UK, and the EU has been a factor in that, both directly (e.g. unfettered free movement) and indirectly (e.g. as an excuse for HMG to ignore the big questions).

Which significant majority is that?

[shaunbhoy]

Which significant majority is that?

Err the 17+ million that voted to Leave??

[WTFH]

Oh dear - Brexit plunges UK economy to worst level since 2009

Err the 17+ million that voted to Leave??

err, your understanding is flawed.
17+ million was not the "significant majority". The majority was about 1.27 million.

: :

[original PM]

Shut up and listen to the Trumpster

Donald Trump says French and Germans to face 'extreme vetting' entering the US

[sirja]

Err the 17+ million that voted to Leave??

Wow so on your plane of reality 52% constitutes a significant majority??

[CretinWatcher]

All of these problems either emerged or accelerated during the period that we've been within the EU. The connection between these things is complicated and arguable. As is the economic outlook both pre- and post-Brexit. Anyone, I'd suggest, that refuses to accept the potential benefits of Brexit in the long-term, many of which are not economic, is overly emotional about the EU, as is someone that refuses to accept the potential costs in the short-term (overly emotional about the UK). I'd freely admit that some of the short-term costs were guaranteed (e.g. depreciation of Sterling), whereas many of the long-term benefits are contingent on how we (and the rest of the EU) now position ourselves. But, let's be clear that the status quo was not working for a significant majority in the UK, and the EU has been a factor in that, both directly (e.g. unfettered free movement) and indirectly (e.g. as an excuse for HMG to ignore the big questions).

The reason that the OECD, IMF, BoE, and countless other economic thinktanks exagerate the costs of leaving and overstate the benefits of remaining is that, fundamentally, they lack imagination; more specifically, they lack a broad imagination. They have neither the desire nor the spirit to re-imagine some of the fundamental assumptions that have emerged during a period of unfettered globalisation; assumptions about trade, identity, the distribution of wealth and the value of things that are produced and consumed. This is why, for example, central banks wholeheartedly embrace mechanisms that increase money supply while fully understanding that capital appreciation reinforces the worst excesses of globalisation and economic inequality. In the short-term, some of these excesses will be reinforced by Brexit. In the long-term, it depends how we respond; where and how we invest to offset the risks posed by Brexit and whether and how we show the foresight to reform.

This may all sound rather Jeremy Corbyn, but it isn't. I'm a strong believer in a parliamentary democracy that represents a majority. I could opine on your technical points about debt and productivity (I might still ), but consider this for a moment. As things stand, parliamentary democracies across the West are becoming increasingly detached from their electorates, and the potentially profound (social, economic, existential) consequences of this detachment - most purely espoused by the EU - are becoming increasingly clear from the politicians that these electorates are now seeking to promote. Unless this is reversed, by making politicians and institutions more representative - more local - no amount of productivity growth, QE or GDP is going to address the existential questions that are now being posed. You have a technocratic world-view. This is why you focus on the current account, productivity, debt/deficit, and so on. All of these things are important, but they are not the only important things. You either ignore or dismiss non-technocratic arguments as "stupid", "moronic", "cretinous" (choose your profanity ). You are an accomplished technocrat, I'm sure, but you appear to suffer a dearth of imagination that is common among technocrats.

Cutting through the assumptions, waffle, ad hominemism.

1. The economic failures I listed are entirely home grown and not due to the EU, since many EU members have avoided one or all of them completely. The myths of blaming exterior factors and nativist national renewal are potent ones that have occurred with other ex-empires and historically always come naught since the underlying problems are NOT caused by external factors. The same will happen here.

2. The failure of imagination is entirely from the Leavers. my imagination encompassed leading the EU which our favourable demographics suggested was a possibility within a generation, given that we engaged with it.

3. In the current context the democracy argument is a farce. We have an unelected Leader, a party which has removed a central plank of its manifesto without going to the country (fiscal prudence) and is about to implement a policy that many know will be disastrous on the basis of a non binding referendum. If you believe in parliamentary democracy let parliament vote with every MP voting on the basis of their belief. Would you agree with the result?

Anyway these arguments are getting tedious. Let's come back in 5 years and see who was right. If we have the wherewithal we can arrange our affairs on the basis of our beliefs.