Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Brexit consequences

999 replies

Spinflight · 04/07/2017 07:30

Can't find the old one, despite a search. Hence a year on...

I started it to compare the doom and gloom predictions from people who should know better, especially the treasury, to actual observable facts.

Thus far the treasury predicted our borrowing costs would soar by over 130 points. In fact they're down about 100.

No trade deals possible before (I forget the date they said, was far in the future though) compared to actual negotiations beginning with the USA later this month with the president firmly behind them. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Korea and several others I've forgotten have shown a great desire for a deal quickly.

Ftse 100 and 250 are well up, just shy of 7500.

Best of all from a macro economic perspective is inflation touching 3%. When you are £1800 billion in debt rating that away with inflation is far preferable to actually paying it off.

Growth has dropped a bit, though nowhere near the instant recession that was predicted. Bit early to say though this is likely due to the referendum.

External investment is actually nicely up, with several major companies announcing various large commitments.

Things could be rosier, though it would be a struggle to describe them generally as bad, quite contrary to 'informed' opinions. Even the oecd recently ate their pre referendum words.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Mistigri · 19/08/2017 15:41

Macron has work to do and there are clearly opportunities to streamline public services.

But if you look at the French budget deficit as a % of GDP, it's been lower than the UK in every year since the financial crisis except 2016 (and falling for most of that time). Its forecast to be below the EU target of 3% this year.

There's this weird kipper/ altright mindset that France is a basket case, when it's similar sized economy to the UK, is growing faster, has higher productivity and lower poverty levels.

TheaSaurass · 19/08/2017 16:11

"But if you look at the French budget deficit as a % of GDP, it's been lower than the UK in every year since the financial crisis except 2016 (and falling for most of that time). Its forecast to be below the EU target of 3% this year."

As I've explained elsewhere, when a (UK) government raises spending/debt to unprecedented levels, as we did in the 2000's a government can 'buy' GDP growth - and if that same government hands over in 2010 a £167 bil annual budget deficit that was in surplus in 2001 - the problem was PRE financial crash.

France never had their high tax, anti business, socialist government until 2012.

There is a Europhile economist not far from herewho clearly thought 10% plus French unemployment and the fact that permanent French jobs accounted for just 16% of new contracts by 2015, trending down from a quarter in 2000 – is an economic SUCCESS story, so can’t be worth their economists ‘salt’ in my view.

Apparently in the UK if a government looks to reduce a £167 bil by cutting back a fat state that grew through the 2000 to unsustainable levels, its called 'austerity' - in France cutting back their perpetual fat state its called "opportunities'. Confused

I re-iterate earlier points; to a Europhile the EU can only poop roses, and all those ‘little Eu and member state problems’, they all will be be fixed with ‘the (EU) magic sponge’.

Mistigri · 19/08/2017 16:24

You need to stop mansplaining stuff that you don't understand to female professionals who actually work in the field...

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 16:51

Misti, in fact very little of what is above makes any sense in economic terms .

"As I've explained elsewhere, when a (UK) government raises spending/debt to unprecedented levels, as we did in the 2000's a government can 'buy' GDP growth - and if that same government hands over in 2010 a £167 bil annual budget deficit that was in surplus in 2001 - the problem was PRE financial crash."

Ok, then why was the same deficit to GDP the same pre 2008 as it had been in 97? Had the Tories been buying GDP growth too, it was significantly higher for much of the 90s too.

The problem was not the Labour spending, it was the world financial crash, and the recession that followed. Its called a Cyclical defict, but you don't seem to be able to grasp that, nor the straws you clutch at.

You seriously shoudln't be discussing econnomics sore arse, you definately don't understand what you are talking about.

TheaSaurass · 19/08/2017 17:02

Mistigri …Ooooh, get you.

Cc batildabigshot.

If economists (whether female or not) can only judge an economy by some big picture debt to GDP level, maybe society is better off if THEY were working in the ‘fields’.

If the huge increase in UK government spending over a decade had built new motorways, nuclear power stations, new rail networks, new garden cities, or ‘just’ a huge building of government made homes across the nation, and encouraged private sector hiring in UK manufacturing, or and other current or futuristic industry – rather than building a fat government with tens of £billions then being spent on new government quangos and unreformed waste e.g. a new £11 bil NHS I.T. not fit for purpose – then that UK GDP could be judged by international comparisons.

And society wouldn’t just have had something useful to show for all that spending/debt, that spending would have contributed to FUTURE UK GDP growth, instead of currently ‘contributing’ around £47 billion a year of debt interest charges onto our National Debt figure.

You may gather, whether here in Brussels, I detest fat government, and I don’t need to be an economist to look at the sheer growth opportunity loss OF a fat government, sapping the private sector and citizens earnings, who invariably can spend their own money better than an expansionist state who think they know best.

Government should be as big as it NEEDS to be to ensure services and those who need short term or long term help get it, not some self perpetuating ideological objective.

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 17:18

"I detest fat government, and I don’t need to be an economist to look at the sheer growth opportunity loss OF a fat government, sapping the private sector and citizens earnings, who invariably can spend their own money better than an expansionist state who think they know best."

Yes free markets really work don't they, after all they did so well during the 2000s. Also, there is no such thing as a free market, there is always some form of government intervention. Those who argue for free markets often do so because they benefit from the current status quo, or would benefit from changes, they don't argue often in order to improve the efficiency at which the market delivers.

Our national debt btw, is lower in terms of debt to GDP than it has been for most of the last 180 years.

"If economists (whether female or not) can only judge an economy by some big picture debt to GDP level, maybe society is better off if THEY were working in the ‘fields’."

This demonstrates yet again that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, there is no point discussing debt levels without comparing it to GDP, you just want to use nominal figure cause it sounds big and you can put it in capitals and under line it.

TheaSaurass · 19/08/2017 19:17

"Yes free markets really work don't they, after all they did so well during the 2000s."

What has lifted countries in the Far East etc out of poverty, if not for their access to the breadth and depth of the capital markets - their diety?

Sub Prime Mortgages had been around in America since the 1930's, its only when political idiots try to use capitalism to gratify their voters and don't know what they are doing, it goes tits up.

So the deregulation in both America and here is not the failure of capitalism, after all in America the 'object' was to lend to the poorest families to own their own home - it was due to politicians relaxing existing financial regulations - in America put in place after the 1930' crash via Glass-Steagall Act if memory serves.

And

"there is always some form of government intervention"

Based on the above, I'd have to agree with you, and a possible first. Wine

”Gordon Brown: I made ‘big mistake’ on banks before financial crisis”

“Labour's lax regulation of the City contributed to RBS collapse” – watchdog”

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 19:27

"What has lifted countries in the Far East etc out of poverty, if not for their access to the breadth and depth of the capital markets - their diety?"

In many its the planned nature of the economy, protectionism of infant industries. China is still a planned economy, and South Korea's industrial development was directed by the Government. See Ha Joon Chang for further information.

"it was due to politicians relaxing existing financial regulations - in America put in place after the 1930' crash via Glass-Steagall Act if memory serves."

I mentioned this earlier, but similar regulation here was removed by the Thatcher government in the 1980s.

See you want to blame politicians for interevening too much, then you want them to intervene, you can't decide what you want.

Sub prime mortgages had been available, but far less common and the private institutions that offered them were more risk averse. Again private sector behaviour caused the extremely risky lending.

It then caused the CDO crisis, which magnified the problem incredibly.

The Private sector is to blame, not the state. Private sector debt and risk was transferred to the public. All advanced economies run fiscal deficits, all of them have high national debt, all have been involved in expansionary monetary policy.

Yet you single out the Labour government and blame it for the financial crisis, and unlike Krugman and many other leading economists and politicians of the time, say that the response of the Brown government wasn't good enough. When the rest of the world followed his lead.

Political bias is clear as is your confusion.

mummmy2017 · 19/08/2017 19:28

GDP I know is how much the country makes.
The debt is what we owe.
But on any profit and loss don't you take what it costs off to make this and just got for the net profit.
So the income of a country is actually the tax they take of the profit of producers of goods, services or what ever.
So in fact a governments income is many time smaller than the GDP,.
I realize this will include VAT and Income tax as well as council Tax ect.

mathanxiety · 19/08/2017 22:10

Thea
I don’t need to be an economist to look at the sheer growth opportunity loss OF a fat government, sapping the private sector and citizens earnings, who invariably can spend their own money better than an expansionist state who think they know best.

Government should be as big as it NEEDS to be to ensure services and those who need short term or long term help get it, not some self perpetuating ideological objective.

You don't need to be an economist, but an education in economics might help you to see how your phrase 'Government should be as big as it NEEDS to be to ensure services and those who need short term or long term help get it' is incredibly silly and self serving and based on pure ideology.

If economists (whether female or not) can only judge an economy by some big picture debt to GDP level, maybe society is better off if THEY were working in the ‘fields’
When it comes to this sort of pronouncement, it really does become clear that education in economics would be really helpful to you.

Lacking it, your beliefs about Brexit and the EU are just ideologically-inspired.

As to "working in the 'fields'" do you have something like North Korea or the former Kampuchea in mind?

Yes indeed, your political (aka ideological bias) is clear, and your confusion too.

Mummy - not so.
www.thebalance.com/what-is-gdp-definition-of-gross-domestic-product-3306038

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 22:14

GDP is not how much the country makes, its the value of al goods and services produced within the economy.

The debt is indeed what we owe, but using profit and loss anaogies doesn't work with national finances.

Think of it more like the national debt is a countries mortgage, not a credit card.

For 180 of the last 240 years ( when we started using bonds to fund national spending) the debt to GDP ratio has been higher.

mummmy2017 · 19/08/2017 22:30

Sorry wrong word produces, , I was including services.
But you can work on Net profit on any thing, also they only get the profit of tax from this production, as I could say I sold 1 billion pounds of info to Africa but it cost 2 billion to make this data avaliable. which would distort the figures as there would be a loss, and no profits.

Surly debt to income would be a much better way of showing how profitable a country was.

mummmy2017 · 19/08/2017 22:41

Real GDP per capita.
Now this I can understand.
How much you produce and how much the Govenment spend and then relate it too how much it is per person in the Country.
So if your country is doing well the figures should rise.

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 22:45

What you are falling for here is the national debt is like household debt trope.

Its too simple to put it like that, easy for politicans to make it sound feasible, but in reality it doesn't work like that.

There are lots of articles out there by eminent economists, have a look at Krugman and Stiglitz to start.

Have a look here:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-unusual-is-it-for-the-british-government-to-run-a-budget-surplus-10309178.html

mummmy2017 · 19/08/2017 22:59

So basically the figures can be made to lie, but they are still the best indicator of a sort.

Because if you have production not really rising but a government on a spending spree it would look like the country is doing well.

mummmy2017 · 19/08/2017 23:03

Your link, yes I remember that being in the papers about a balanced budget, to make them not spend more than was received.
Wasn't it about getting rid of the huge amounts of interest we pay on loans as well?

bathildabagshot1 · 19/08/2017 23:39

"Because if you have production not really rising but a government on a spending spree it would look like the country is doing well"

No, again that's over simplistic.

However if you want a simple analogy think about it this way.

If a Country is like a corporation, you'd look at its balance sheet to see how it was doing, not its profit and loss.

In terms of the UK national assetts far outstrip liabilities. Now, these assets might never, and some could never be sold, but in the same way, much of the debt is paid back over long periods of time, at low interest rates.

We don't pay that much interest on loans either, about 5% of all government spending. Also the government own about £350 billion of our own debt, so pay some of that interest back to its self. The net payment is about 33bn, or 4.21 of government spending.

Now you might say, why don't we concentrate on paying it off so we can spend that on ourselves? Well apart from the implications of cutting government spending and its impacts on the future of the country ( cutting both capital and current spending has serious negative effects), the difference between gross interest payments and the deficit is about £3bn, and in that case we have to take the opportunity cost into consideation.

Confused yet?

Mistigri · 20/08/2017 07:24

Where I live, an economics module is compulsory for all students in their first year of senior high (sixth form college). It might be something worth considering for the UK - it is hard to have a conversation about economics when people have no basic education in the subject. This isn't intended to be sarky btw, I think it is genuinely problematic for democracy that most UK school students don't get taught about how their political institutions and their economy work.

bathildabagshot1 · 20/08/2017 09:07

Ha ha I do hope that wasn't aimed at me Misti.

Mistigri · 20/08/2017 10:16

Lol.

It was a genuine snark-free comment, because it is hard to answer questions like those asked by mummy2017 unless you have some common ground in terms of understanding basic economic terms and concepts. Schools need to teach some of this as part of general citizen education.

TheaSaurass · 20/08/2017 12:50

So a country like the UK with GDP mainly provided by a government enlarging its 100% tax funded self with borrowed money and ever higher taxes, increasing welfare/benefits by 25%, and a private sector paying more taxes is ‘compensated’ by being able to gorge itself on a pre crash financial bubble of cheap and available to all money – is more sustainable and able to produce future GDP, that a more balanced economy, with a thriving Private Sector being encouraged to grow (by government policies) with ‘fair’ taxes, producing MORE taxes to fund the public sector?

Got it.

What would we do without these experienced Europhile economists views, folks? Grin

mummmy2017 · 20/08/2017 15:19

Opportunity cost into consideration.
Ok having just read what it is, I now understand that this is how i feel about brexit.
By leaving I feel it will lessen the rules on business and allow them more freedom to do more things that will allow them to sell more outside the EU which will in turn lead to a rise in output an increase in GDP which leads to lower borrowing rates due to a better credit rating and more cash for the Government to spend to improve the lifes of the people in this country..

TheaSaurass · 20/08/2017 19:11

bathildabagshot1

You said ”I mentioned this earlier, but similar regulation here was removed by the Thatcher government in the 1980s.”

Once again a sweeping statement with NO qualification, as back then in the 1980s unless you were rich you could not get a bank mortgage loan or a home, are you talking about a more technology inspired availability of credit to the masses that also helped working class people buy their own council homes for the first time – and again, what the feck does Thatcher have to do with Gordon Browns following of ex Fed Chairman Greenspan and others, trying to dismantle the Glass-Steagall Act – by allowing UK banks to expand their balance sheets to dangerous, unprecedented levels.

If Gordon Brown admitted he mess up, the FSA agreed that it was under government pressure TO relax credit, it should be good enough for you.

Until the Labour movement ‘grows some’ and recognises, never mind acknowledge their own mistakes in the 1970s and 2000s, and STOP blaming Thatcher who was PM from 1979 to 1990, they will never be fit to govern – especially as the present numpty is offering the worst of the 1970’s and 2000s as ‘new, alternative politics’.

And

” Sub prime mortgages had been available, but far less common and the private institutions that offered them were more risk averse. Again private sector behaviour caused the extremely risky lending.”

Sub Prime mortgages were thriving and a good social tool from the 1930’s in America, until, as you say, the banks rather than the government got hold of them, but based on the lowering of intermediary broker standards of who qualify, the U.S. governments financial regulatory authorities, bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen in hundreds of $billions of securitized mortgages ratings agencies were rating ‘AAA’.

In the UK, as Brown changed to UK financial regulation to a tripartite where he controlled two out of the three regulators, and UK banks like Northern Rock and the Halifax were followed similar models to the U.S. Sub Prime mortgage lending by ‘packaging up’ UK mortgages and ‘securitizing’ them – the FSA (Brown formed) as shown earlier, acknowledges the that they dropped the financial ball, due to government pressures on them.

The facts is, if in America and the UK, EXISTING regulations were adhered to, the U.S. crash would never have happened, and the UK banks (needed to power our economy out of any recession through lending) wouldn’t have been in some a bad balance sheet shape, that a few here would need to be part nationalised, rather than anywhere else in 2008.

So finally ”When the rest of the world followed his lead.”

So tell me, which countries and/or their regulators ‘dropped the ball’ as badly as the U.K and U.S. – as I remember Brown lecturing Europe on how THEY should de regulate their banks, and I don’t remember them biting.

mathanxiety · 20/08/2017 21:18

Mummy
By leaving I feel it will lessen the rules on business and allow them more freedom to do more things that will allow them to sell more outside the EU which will in turn lead to a rise in output an increase in GDP which leads to lower borrowing rates due to a better credit rating and more cash for the Government to spend to improve the lifes of the people in this country..

Here is an interesting fact for you.

Before joining the EU, Ireland neither manufactured nor exported (obv) pharmaceuticals. Ireland is not the largest exporter of pharmaceuticals to the rest of the EU.

How could this happen, with those bothersome regulations acting like such a wet blanket, preventing business from making money?

www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IRL:GBR:USA&hl=en&dl=en
Here is a graph illustrating the problem of EU regulations for Ireland.
(Not).

mathanxiety · 20/08/2017 21:19

'Ireland is not'... = 'Ireland is NOW the largest exporter of pharmaceuticals to the rest of the EU..'

Swipe left for the next trending thread