Discussion:
Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years (Because of Brexit)
(too old to reply)
James Harris
2018-01-12 13:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:

Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years

Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps


To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.

The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
to re-form. But it's a good start.

Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....


--
James Harris
Ophelia
2018-01-12 15:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:p3adke$mb6$***@dont-email.me...

This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:

Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years

Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps


To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.

The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
to re-form. But it's a good start.

Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....

James Harris

==

Hopefully that will come soon. Not before time:))
Yellow
2018-01-12 15:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>
> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>
> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>
>
> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>
> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>
> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....

I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.

I think it said it was quoting The Economist.

So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
fail and that would bring the prediction about.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-01-12 15:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yellow wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
> @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>
>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>
>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>
>>
>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>
>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>
>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>
> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
> because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
> is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>
> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>

The Economist seems more political than, er, economical.

> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
> everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
> fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>
abelard
2018-01-12 16:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:45:34 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
wrote:

>Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
>> @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>
>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>
>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>
>>>
>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>
>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>
>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>
>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
>> because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
>> is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>
>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>
>
>The Economist seems more political than, er, economical.

sad, ain't it...
there is no useful 'news' in the fossil media...everything is tainted

>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
>> everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
>> fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>>

--
www.abelard.org
James Harris
2018-01-12 17:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
> @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>
>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>
>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>
>>
>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>
>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>
>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>
> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
> because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
> is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>
> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>
> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
> everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
> fail and that would bring the prediction about.

That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming they got
the predictions wrong because the British public didn't react properly.
The public didn't do as the economists said they should. Rotten spoil
sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!


--
James Harris
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-01-12 17:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James Harris wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
>> @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>
>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>
>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>
>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>
>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>
>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
>> because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
>> is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>
>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>
>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
>> everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
>> fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>
> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming they got
> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't react properly.
> The public didn't do as the economists said they should. Rotten spoil
> sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!
>

And then we get criticised for not having faith in the experts any more.
'The Mighty Oz has spoken.'
harry
2018-01-12 18:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 12 January 2018 17:13:22 UTC, James Harris wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
> > @gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
> >>
> >> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
> >>
> >> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
> >> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
> >> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
> >>
> >> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
> >>
> >>
> >> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
> >> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
> >> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
> >> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
> >> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
> >> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
> >>
> >> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
> >> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
> >> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
> >> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
> >> to re-form. But it's a good start.
> >>
> >> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
> >
> > I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to pass was
> > because consumers and businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
> > is going to be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
> >
> > I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
> >
> > So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail because
> > everyone would listen to the news that that the economy was going to
> > fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>
> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming they got
> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't react properly.
> The public didn't do as the economists said they should. Rotten spoil
> sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!
>
>
> --
> James Harris

Economist = astrologer.
pamela
2018-01-13 11:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>
>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>
>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>> footing.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>
>>>
>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound
>>> and global growth, both of which are helping. On the currency,
>>> there's a case to be made that the pound has long been
>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>
>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took
>>> the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and
>>> that is allowing more substantial value-add industries to
>>> begin to re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good
>>> start.
>>>
>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>
>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending and
>> expanding regardless.
>>
>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>
>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the economy
>> was going to fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>
> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
> they got the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
> react properly.

Sounds like a fake news story to me.

Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or reaction
to factors which the economists were studying?


> The public didn't do as the economists said they should. Rotten
> spoil sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!
Fredxx
2018-01-13 20:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>
>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>
>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>> footing.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound
>>>> and global growth, both of which are helping. On the currency,
>>>> there's a case to be made that the pound has long been
>>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>
>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took
>>>> the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and
>>>> that is allowing more substantial value-add industries to
>>>> begin to re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good
>>>> start.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>
>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending and
>>> expanding regardless.
>>>
>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>
>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the economy
>>> was going to fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>>
>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>> react properly.
>
> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>
> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or reaction
> to factors which the economists were studying?

Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?

Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
pamela
2018-01-13 20:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>
>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>> footing.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low
>>>>> pound and global growth, both of which are helping. On the
>>>>> currency, there's a case to be made that the pound has long
>>>>> been overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>> substance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to re-form.
>>>>> But it's a good start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>
>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending
>>>> and expanding regardless.
>>>>
>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>
>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the prediction
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>> didn't react properly.
>>
>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>
>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>
> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>
> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?

Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should be
out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have no new
immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in unopposed
sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU
"laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
documentary).

What went wrong?


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car.
No one told us about the £40 billion exit payment.
Fredxx
2018-01-13 22:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low
>>>>>> pound and global growth, both of which are helping. On the
>>>>>> currency, there's a case to be made that the pound has long
>>>>>> been overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>>> substance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to re-form.
>>>>>> But it's a good start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>
>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending
>>>>> and expanding regardless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the prediction
>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>> didn't react properly.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>
>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>
>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>
>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>
> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should be
> out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have no new
> immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in unopposed
> sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU
> "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
> documentary).
>
> What went wrong?

Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.

We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no divorce
settlement, but hey.
pamela
2018-01-14 00:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>
>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>
>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>
>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>
>> What went wrong?
>
> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>
> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
> divorce settlement, but hey.

Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-14 09:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>
>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>
>>> What went wrong?
>>
>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>
>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>
> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.

Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.

I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the start of
righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal Europe.
Ophelia
2018-01-14 09:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fredxx" wrote in message news:p3f8kg$q3u$***@dont-email.me...

On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>
>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>
>>> What went wrong?
>>
>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>
>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>
> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.

Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.

I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the start of
righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal Europe.

==
+1
pamela
2018-01-14 13:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>
>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>
>>>> What went wrong?
>>>
>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>
>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>
>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>
> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>
> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the start
> of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal Europe.


The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then turned
into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-14 19:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
> On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>>
>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>
>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>
>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>
>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>
>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the start
>> of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal Europe.
>
>
> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then turned
> into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.

My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come true.

Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have any?
pamela
2018-01-14 20:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19:39 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
>> On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>>
>>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>>
>>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>>
>>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the
>>> start of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal
>>> Europe.
>>
>>
>> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then
>> turned into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.
>
> My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come
> true.
>
> Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have
> any?

I do not see anything attractive in a of Brits whose arrogance has
made them overplay their hand. Now all they can do is bluster
about how great their mess is going to be.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-14 22:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 20:52, pamela wrote:
> On 19:39 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
>>> On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>>>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>>>
>>>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>>>
>>>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the
>>>> start of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal
>>>> Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then
>>> turned into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.
>>
>> My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come
>> true.
>>
>> Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have
>> any?
>
> I do not see anything attractive in a of Brits whose arrogance has
> made them overplay their hand. Now all they can do is bluster
> about how great their mess is going to be.

The only bluster is from Teresa May and her negotiating team.

Most Brexiters knew that WTO tariffs were a possible outcome. Nothing is
being overplayed.
Ian Jackson
2018-01-15 08:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <p3gn3h$rqi$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes
>On 14/01/2018 20:52, pamela wrote:
>> On 19:39 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>>>>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the
>>>>> start of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal
>>>>> Europe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then
>>>> turned into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.
>>>
>>> My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have
>>> any?
>> I do not see anything attractive in a of Brits whose arrogance has
>> made them overplay their hand. Now all they can do is bluster
>> about how great their mess is going to be.
>
>The only bluster is from Teresa May and her negotiating team.
>
>Most Brexiters knew that WTO tariffs were a possible outcome. Nothing
>is being overplayed.

What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no knowledge about how
business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost certainly never
even heard of a 'WTO'?
--
Ian
Fredxx
2018-01-15 11:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <p3gn3h$rqi$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com> writes
>> On 14/01/2018 20:52, pamela wrote:
>>> On 19:39  14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 09:41  14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22:36  13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20:34  13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13  12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we  now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deep recession?  Not according to Brexiteers.  By now we
>>>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and no
>>>>>>>> divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the
>>>>>> start of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a federal
>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then
>>>>> turned into pure fantasy.  Your dream is now a delusion.
>>>>
>>>> My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have
>>>> any?
>>>  I do not see anything attractive in a of Brits whose arrogance has
>>> made them overplay their hand.  Now all they can do is bluster
>>> about how great their mess is going to be.
>>
>> The only bluster is from Teresa May and her negotiating team.
>>
>> Most Brexiters knew that WTO tariffs were a possible outcome. Nothing
>> is being overplayed.
>
> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no knowledge about how
> business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost certainly never
> even heard of a 'WTO'?

One could also say the same about those who voted remain after the lies
propagated by Project Fear.
Ian Jackson
2018-01-15 14:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes
>On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:


>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no knowledge about
>>how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost certainly
>>never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>
>One could also say the same about those who voted remain after the lies
>propagated by Project Fear.

"What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard Brexiteer
retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but some of the 'fears'
may yet come to pass - although if they do, I'm sure that their link to
Brexit will be played down as much as possible. Even now, there are
suggestions that the sudden Carillion collapse might have been
influenced by Brexit - but who knows (yet).
--
Ian
pamela
2018-01-15 18:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>
>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>> knowledge about
>>>how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>
>>One could also say the same about those who voted remain after
>>the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>
> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard
> Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but
> some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass - although if they do,
> I'm sure that their link to Brexit will be played down as much
> as possible. Even now, there are suggestions that the sudden
> Carillion collapse might have been influenced by Brexit - but
> who knows (yet).

The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
"10,000 laws governing milk production".


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-15 20:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>> knowledge about
>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>
>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain after
>>> the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>
>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard
>> Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but
>> some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass - although if they do,
>> I'm sure that their link to Brexit will be played down as much
>> as possible. Even now, there are suggestions that the sudden
>> Carillion collapse might have been influenced by Brexit - but
>> who knows (yet).
>
> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
> "10,000 laws governing milk production".

I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.

You're getting your wires crossed.
pamela
2018-01-15 21:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>
>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>
>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard
>>> Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but
>>> some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass - although if they
>>> do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will be played down as
>>> much as possible. Even now, there are suggestions that the
>>> sudden Carillion collapse might have been influenced by Brexit
>>> - but who knows (yet).
>>
>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
>> "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>
> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>
> You're getting your wires crossed.

To assist your recollection, review what was said in the pro-Leave
documentary "Brexit: The Movie".

https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-15 21:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>
>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>
>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard
>>>> Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but
>>>> some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass - although if they
>>>> do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will be played down as
>>>> much as possible. Even now, there are suggestions that the
>>>> sudden Carillion collapse might have been influenced by Brexit
>>>> - but who knows (yet).
>>>
>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
>>> "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>
>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>
>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>
> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the pro-Leave
> documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>
> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The video was going on about
current rules and regulations imposed by the EU. Project Fear is the
term given to Remoaners lies prior to the referendum.
pamela
2018-01-16 00:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21:33 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
>> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much
>>>>> standard Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a
>>>>> little, but some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass -
>>>>> although if they do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will
>>>>> be played down as much as possible. Even now, there are
>>>>> suggestions that the sudden Carillion collapse might have
>>>>> been influenced by Brexit - but who knows (yet).
>>>>
>>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK -
>>>> including "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>>
>>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>>
>>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>>
>> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the
>> pro-Leave documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. The video was going
> on about current rules and regulations imposed by the EU.
> Project Fear is the term given to Remoaners lies prior to the
> referendum.

I wrote:
"The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
"10,000 laws governing milk production".

You replied:

I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.

So I gave you the link where such a thing was said about the
10,000 laws. What the rest of the video says is not necessarily
relevant. There's no need to remind you of the Leave claims in
the campaign which were almost entirely about fleeing the largely
imagined problems of being in the EU.





--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-16 00:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 00:02, pamela wrote:
> On 21:33 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much
>>>>>> standard Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a
>>>>>> little, but some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass -
>>>>>> although if they do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will
>>>>>> be played down as much as possible. Even now, there are
>>>>>> suggestions that the sudden Carillion collapse might have
>>>>>> been influenced by Brexit - but who knows (yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK -
>>>>> including "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>>>
>>> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the
>>> pro-Leave documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM
>>
>> I have no idea what you are trying to say. The video was going
>> on about current rules and regulations imposed by the EU.
>> Project Fear is the term given to Remoaners lies prior to the
>> referendum.
>
> I wrote:
> "The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
> "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>
> You replied:
>
> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>
> So I gave you the link where such a thing was said about the
> 10,000 laws. What the rest of the video says is not necessarily
> relevant. There's no need to remind you of the Leave claims in
> the campaign which were almost entirely about fleeing the largely
> imagined problems of being in the EU.

And you well know, the real Project Fear is the term given to Remoaners
lies prior to the referendum.

What I do accept is that the EU commissioners held back some proposed
legislation so not to provide any more ammunition to the Brexit cause.
James Harris
2018-01-15 22:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>
>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>
>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much standard
>>>> Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a little, but
>>>> some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass - although if they
>>>> do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will be played down as
>>>> much as possible. Even now, there are suggestions that the
>>>> sudden Carillion collapse might have been influenced by Brexit
>>>> - but who knows (yet).
>>>
>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK - including
>>> "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>
>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>
>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>
> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the pro-Leave
> documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>
> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM

Did you ever check the claims or did you just assume they could not be
correct? I did check some of the smaller claims and what I found was
surprising.

I expected that when they came across a document about, say, jelly
babies, which had ten clauses that they would count it as ten
regulations on jelly babies. But not so. It seems they would count one
document with ten clauses as one regulation.

They seem to have counted laws which were simply about what type code to
assign to exports of a given product and they may have included multiple
updates of code lists but the main regulations really are full documents
laying out multiple clauses.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 00:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22:12 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
>> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much
>>>>> standard Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a
>>>>> little, but some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass -
>>>>> although if they do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will
>>>>> be played down as much as possible. Even now, there are
>>>>> suggestions that the sudden Carillion collapse might have
>>>>> been influenced by Brexit - but who knows (yet).
>>>>
>>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK -
>>>> including "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>>
>>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>>
>>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>>
>> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the
>> pro-Leave documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM
>
> Did you ever check the claims or did you just assume they could
> not be correct? I did check some of the smaller claims and what
> I found was surprising.
>
> I expected that when they came across a document about, say,
> jelly babies, which had ten clauses that they would count it as
> ten regulations on jelly babies. But not so. It seems they would
> count one document with ten clauses as one regulation.
>
> They seem to have counted laws which were simply about what type
> code to assign to exports of a given product and they may have
> included multiple updates of code lists but the main regulations
> really are full documents laying out multiple clauses.

Are they laws, regulations or multiple parts of a regulation?


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-16 17:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 00:03, pamela wrote:
> On 22:12 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 21:19, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:43 15 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2018 18:38, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 14:11 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <p3i4gd$epb$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
>>>>>> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2018 08:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no
>>>>>>>> knowledge about
>>>>>>>> how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
>>>>>>>> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One could also say the same about those who voted remain
>>>>>>> after the lies propagated by Project Fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What about Project Fear?" seems to be a pretty much
>>>>>> standard Brexiteer retort. Yes, maybe it was over-played a
>>>>>> little, but some of the 'fears' may yet come to pass -
>>>>>> although if they do, I'm sure that their link to Brexit will
>>>>>> be played down as much as possible. Even now, there are
>>>>>> suggestions that the sudden Carillion collapse might have
>>>>>> been influenced by Brexit - but who knows (yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> The real Project Fear was fear of the EU and all the terrible
>>>>> things the EU was supposed to be foisting on the UK -
>>>>> including "10,000 laws governing milk production".
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any Remoaners suggesting anything of the sort.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting your wires crossed.
>>>
>>> To assist your recollection, review what was said in the
>>> pro-Leave documentary "Brexit: The Movie".
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM
>>
>> Did you ever check the claims or did you just assume they could
>> not be correct? I did check some of the smaller claims and what
>> I found was surprising.
>>
>> I expected that when they came across a document about, say,
>> jelly babies, which had ten clauses that they would count it as
>> ten regulations on jelly babies. But not so. It seems they would
>> count one document with ten clauses as one regulation.
>>
>> They seem to have counted laws which were simply about what type
>> code to assign to exports of a given product and they may have
>> included multiple updates of code lists but the main regulations
>> really are full documents laying out multiple clauses.
>
> Are they laws, regulations or multiple parts of a regulation?

As I think I indicated, there is a mixture of things. The database(s)
is/are online if you want to check for yourself.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-15 18:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08:49 15 Jan 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <p3gn3h$rqi$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx
> <***@nospam.com> writes
>>On 14/01/2018 20:52, pamela wrote:
>>> On 19:39 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 13:22, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 09:41 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 00:27, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22:36 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits of the low pound and global growth, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of which are helping. On the currency, there's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case to be made that the pound has long been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as production capacity takes time to re-form. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not come to pass was because consumers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> businesses just do not realise how dreadful Brexit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is going to be so have kept on spending and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bring the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest)
>>>>>>>>>>> or reaction to factors which the economists were
>>>>>>>>>>> studying?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra
>>>>>>>>> £350 million a week, have no new
>>>>>>>>> immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>>>>>>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly
>>>>>>>>> there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to
>>>>>>>>> "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Teresa May and various Remoaners double crossed us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could be simply subject to WTO tariffs next year and
>>>>>>>> no divorce settlement, but hey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you woke up and realised that idea was only a dream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infatuation with dreams is a Remoaner thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live in the real world, the vote for Brexit was just the
>>>>>> start of righting a wrong and stopping the slide to a
>>>>>> federal Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The premise of Brexit is one big unproven hope which then
>>>>> turned into pure fantasy. Your dream is now a delusion.
>>>>
>>>> My dream of a pay rise after 10 years of stagnation has come
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Just because your dreams have fallen flat, or you didn't have
>>>> any?
>>>
>>> I do not see anything attractive in a of Brits whose
>>> arrogance has made them overplay their hand. Now all they
>>> can do is bluster about how great their mess is going to be.
>>
>>The only bluster is from Teresa May and her negotiating team.
>>
>>Most Brexiters knew that WTO tariffs were a possible outcome.
>>Nothing is being overplayed.
>
> What about all those Brexiteers who had little or no knowledge
> about how business, commerce and trade operate - and had almost
> certainly never even heard of a 'WTO'?

Wasn't it astonishing to see how quickly Leavers became self-
proclaimed experts in WTO requirements?

It was also astonishing to see how much they had got it wrong.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-14 18:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low
>>>>>> pound and global growth, both of which are helping. On the
>>>>>> currency, there's a case to be made that the pound has long
>>>>>> been overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>>> substance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to re-form.
>>>>>> But it's a good start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>
>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending
>>>>> and expanding regardless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the prediction
>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>> didn't react properly.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>
>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>
>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>
>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>
> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should be
> out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have no new
> immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in unopposed
> sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU
> "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
> documentary).
>
> What went wrong?

First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for four
quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO idea about
Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave. Brexiteers still want
immigrants to come here. Prices won't be affected much until we leave
and set our own import duties. And similar for your other comments.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-14 20:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>
>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>
>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>
>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>
>> What went wrong?
>
> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.

"Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the best
joke I 've heard all day.

James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that the
expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already left by
now (18 months after the referndum) and that the purported
benefits such as £350 million a week would already be with us.

> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
> import duties. And similar for your other comments.

Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do not
have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
effects.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-14 22:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>
>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>
>>> What went wrong?
>>
>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>
> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the best
> joke I 've heard all day.
>
> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that the
> expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already left by
> now (18 months after the referndum) and that the purported
> benefits such as £350 million a week would already be with us.

No worse than expectations from Remoaners that we should now be in a
mother of all recessions.

>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>
> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do not
> have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
> effects.

You may have felt the effect of a slump in the pound. I have seen my pay
increase more than any slump so far.
pamela
2018-01-14 23:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22:56 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>
>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>
>>>> What went wrong?
>>>
>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>
>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>
>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would already
>> be with us.
>
> No worse than expectations from Remoaners that we should now be
> in a mother of all recessions.

You don't seem to have a sense of true perspective. There's a vast
difference between the wild expectations and foolhardiness of Leavers
compared to the steady caution of the Remainers.

>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>
>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
>> effects.
>
> You may have felt the effect of a slump in the pound. I have
> seen my pay increase more than any slump so far.

Lucky you because average wages are growing slower than inflation
which means most people are not sharing your joyful experience.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-14 23:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 23:04, pamela wrote:
> On 22:56 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>>
>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>
>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>>>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>>>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>
>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>>
>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would already
>>> be with us.
>>
>> No worse than expectations from Remoaners that we should now be
>> in a mother of all recessions.
>
> You don't seem to have a sense of true perspective. There's a vast
> difference between the wild expectations and foolhardiness of Leavers
> compared to the steady caution of the Remainers.

There is an even bigger difference between the mother of all economic
collapses prophesied by Project fear and the reality.

That is the true perspective.

>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>
>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
>>> effects.
>>
>> You may have felt the effect of a slump in the pound. I have
>> seen my pay increase more than any slump so far.
>
> Lucky you because average wages are growing slower than inflation
> which means most people are not sharing your joyful experience.

Many are, especially if they move jobs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/21/want-pay-rise-get-new-job-says-bank-england/
pamela
2018-01-16 00:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23:57 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 23:04, pamela wrote:
>> On 22:56 14 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have
>>>>> NO idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we
>>>>> leave. Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>>
>>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>>>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>>>
>>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>>>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>>>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>>>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would already
>>>> be with us.
>>>
>>> No worse than expectations from Remoaners that we should now
>>> be in a mother of all recessions.
>>
>> You don't seem to have a sense of true perspective. There's a
>> vast difference between the wild expectations and foolhardiness
>> of Leavers compared to the steady caution of the Remainers.
>
> There is an even bigger difference between the mother of all
> economic collapses prophesied by Project fear and the reality.
>
> That is the true perspective.

The Remainers warned of trouble which has indeed appeared but not
as severely as they expected.

On the other hand, Leavers talked of benefits most of which are no
longer expected and they have overlooked the true mother and
father of all drawbacks: a jaw dropping £40 billion exit bill.

How easily are we going to pay that, according to Brexiteers, when
even they expect the economy to go downwards?

>>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>>
>>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>>>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the
>>>> ill effects.
>>>
>>> You may have felt the effect of a slump in the pound. I have
>>> seen my pay increase more than any slump so far.
>>
>> Lucky you because average wages are growing slower than
>> inflation which means most people are not sharing your joyful
>> experience.
>
> Many are, especially if they move jobs:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/21/want-pay-
> rise-get-new-job-says-bank-england/

Even more so if they move to Germany. :)



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-15 21:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>>>>> footing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the UK's
>>>>>>>> financial systems and headline wealth figures look good at
>>>>>>>> the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to
>>>>>>>> re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>
>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we should
>>> be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a week, have
>>> no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly there
>>> are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to "Brexit: The
>>> Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>
>>> What went wrong?
>>
>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>
> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the best
> joke I 've heard all day.

Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to regain CONTROL,
that's all. We want the numbers of immigrants and their skills to match
what we as a country need, rather than just having hundreds of millions
of people able to move here and compete for jobs and resources. Why is
that so hard to understand?

Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them each a key?
Simply because you want to control who comes in to your house or flat.
It doesn't mean you don't want them round or that you dislike them.
Quite the opposite. But you want to maintain control. That's normal,
just as it's normal for a nation to control its own borders.

I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted against Brexit
didn't understand it. I'd like to think that once they see how it is
working out the penny will drop and then the nation will start to come
together.

>
> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that the
> expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already left by
> now (18 months after the referndum) and that the purported
> benefits such as £350 million a week would already be with us.

Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process is a nominal
two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see how we could be out "by
now".

>
>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>
> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do not
> have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
> effects.

The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short term but is
helping heal the economy - and that matters more.

I would say the uncertainty of this period is more damaging. But it's
unavoidable when making so big a change.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 00:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21:37 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>
>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>
>>>> What went wrong?
>>>
>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>
>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>
> Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to regain
> CONTROL, that's all. We want the numbers of immigrants and their
> skills to match what we as a country need, rather than just
> having hundreds of millions of people able to move here and
> compete for jobs and resources. Why is that so hard to
> understand?
>
> Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them each
> a key? Simply because you want to control who comes in to your
> house or flat. It doesn't mean you don't want them round or that
> you dislike them. Quite the opposite. But you want to maintain
> control. That's normal, just as it's normal for a nation to
> control its own borders.
>
> I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted against
> Brexit didn't understand it. I'd like to think that once they
> see how it is working out the penny will drop and then the
> nation will start to come together.

Nonsense. People do not want "controlled immigrants" here. They
want fewer immigrants here.

>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would already
>> be with us.
>
> Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process is a
> nominal two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see how we
> could be out "by now".
>
>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>
>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
>> effects.
>
> The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short term
> but is helping heal the economy - and that matters more.

What proof do you have that the fall in the pound, below that
which the IMF judged necessary, is helping heal the economy?



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-16 17:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 00:06, pamela wrote:
> On 21:37 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November that
>>>>>>>>>> beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to start
>>>>>>>>>> 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits of
>>>>>>>>>> the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made that
>>>>>>>>>> the pound has long been overvalued due to governments
>>>>>>>>>> favouring financial markets, and that has caused the
>>>>>>>>>> UK's financial systems and headline wealth figures look
>>>>>>>>>> good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe
>>>>>>>>>> a bit more), and that is allowing more substantial
>>>>>>>>>> value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>>>>>>>>>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production
>>>>>>>>>> capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350 million a
>>>>> week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops,
>>>>> bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules
>>>>> (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>>
>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>
>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have NO
>>>> idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we leave.
>>>> Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>
>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>
>> Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to regain
>> CONTROL, that's all. We want the numbers of immigrants and their
>> skills to match what we as a country need, rather than just
>> having hundreds of millions of people able to move here and
>> compete for jobs and resources. Why is that so hard to
>> understand?
>>
>> Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them each
>> a key? Simply because you want to control who comes in to your
>> house or flat. It doesn't mean you don't want them round or that
>> you dislike them. Quite the opposite. But you want to maintain
>> control. That's normal, just as it's normal for a nation to
>> control its own borders.
>>
>> I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted against
>> Brexit didn't understand it. I'd like to think that once they
>> see how it is working out the penny will drop and then the
>> nation will start to come together.
>
> Nonsense. People do not want "controlled immigrants" here. They
> want fewer immigrants here.

Brexit is not about NOW. It is about three, four, seven, twenty and so
on years in the future. If we had voted to Remain then for all the years
and decades ahead we faced a complete lack of control over immigration
from the EU27. But by voting to Leave we have decided to take back
control over all such matters and the number of immigrants we need will
VARY over time. Brexit will allow the government to vary the numbers of
people we let in over time to suit the needs of both the economy and the
people who are already here.

As it happens, you claimed that "Brexiteers want immigrants" was
nonsense but now you state that they do want immigrants, just fewer of
them. Haven't you contradicted yourself?

>
>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would already
>>> be with us.
>>
>> Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process is a
>> nominal two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see how we
>> could be out "by now".
>>
>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>
>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the ill
>>> effects.
>>
>> The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short term
>> but is helping heal the economy - and that matters more.
>
> What proof do you have that the fall in the pound, below that
> which the IMF judged necessary, is helping heal the economy?

In 2014 the IMF said the high pound was preventing the economy
rebalancing away from an unhealthy reliance on domestic spending and
imports.

From 2017 we read things like these:

Tourists spent £2bn in Britain in the month, soaring by 20pc on the
year. That is the largest amount ever spent in the UK by foreign
visitors in the month of April.

We overtook France in manufacturing.

U.K. factories recorded their strongest growth in more than four years
in November, with firms recording strong domestic and export demand.

Venture capital investment into the UK's tech sector reached an all-time
high of £2.99bn, almost double the total invested in 2016, according to
figures compiled by data firm Pitchbook for lobby group London &
Partners. The UK's tech firms, dominated by London, gained more venture
capital investment in total than Germany, France, Spain and Ireland
combined.

And much more.

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1155/Brexit-news


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 20:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17:53 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 00:06, pamela wrote:
>> On 21:37 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have
>>>>> NO idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we
>>>>> leave. Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>>
>>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>>>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>>
>>> Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to regain
>>> CONTROL, that's all. We want the numbers of immigrants and
>>> their skills to match what we as a country need, rather than
>>> just having hundreds of millions of people able to move here
>>> and compete for jobs and resources. Why is that so hard to
>>> understand?
>>>
>>> Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them
>>> each a key? Simply because you want to control who comes in to
>>> your house or flat. It doesn't mean you don't want them round
>>> or that you dislike them. Quite the opposite. But you want to
>>> maintain control. That's normal, just as it's normal for a
>>> nation to control its own borders.
>>>
>>> I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted against
>>> Brexit didn't understand it. I'd like to think that once they
>>> see how it is working out the penny will drop and then the
>>> nation will start to come together.
>>
>> Nonsense. People do not want "controlled immigrants" here.
>> They want fewer immigrants here.
>
> Brexit is not about NOW. It is about three, four, seven, twenty
> and so on years in the future. If we had voted to Remain then
> for all the years and decades ahead we faced a complete lack of
> control over immigration from the EU27. But by voting to Leave
> we have decided to take back control over all such matters and
> the number of immigrants we need will VARY over time. Brexit
> will allow the government to vary the numbers of people we let
> in over time to suit the needs of both the economy and the
> people who are already here.
>
> As it happens, you claimed that "Brexiteers want immigrants" was
> nonsense but now you state that they do want immigrants, just
> fewer of them. Haven't you contradicted yourself?

I said Brexiteers do not want immigrants. You said they didn't
mind as long as the numbers were controlled. However the public
wants far fewer immigrants than the government is talking about
permitting.

Your "control" is one thing but it can still permit large numbers
which are unacceptable to the public.

By the way, leaving the EU has been set for a very specific date.
The years after Britian exits the EU extend to infinity.

>>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>>>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>>>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>>>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would
>>>> already be with us.
>>>
>>> Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process is
>>> a nominal two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see how
>>> we could be out "by now".
>>>
>>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>>
>>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>>>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the
>>>> ill effects.
>>>
>>> The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short
>>> term but is helping heal the economy - and that matters more.
>>
>> What proof do you have that the fall in the pound, below that
>> which the IMF judged necessary, is helping heal the economy?
>
> In 2014 the IMF said the high pound was preventing the economy
> rebalancing away from an unhealthy reliance on domestic spending
> and imports.

The IMF also said very clearly that the pound fell more after the
referendum than needed simply to correct the overvaluation.

Furthermore any overvaluation was not being corrected by the
markets and would probably have remained so if it wasn't for the
referndum.

> From 2017 we read things like these:
>
> Tourists spent £2bn in Britain in the month, soaring by 20pc on
> the year. That is the largest amount ever spent in the UK by
> foreign visitors in the month of April.
>
> We overtook France in manufacturing.
>
> U.K. factories recorded their strongest growth in more than four
> years in November, with firms recording strong domestic and
> export demand.
>
> Venture capital investment into the UK's tech sector reached an
> all-time high of £2.99bn, almost double the total invested in
> 2016, according to figures compiled by data firm Pitchbook for
> lobby group London & Partners. The UK's tech firms, dominated by
> London, gained more venture capital investment in total than
> Germany, France, Spain and Ireland combined.
>
> And much more.
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1155/Brexit-news

The UK has fallen to the bottom of the growth league amongst
developed nations and is currently lagging behind strong growth in
the world economy. The pounds, as discussed, has fallen in value
on account of Brexit. Wages are rising slower than inflation and
general price rise levels are troubling

Although the outcome is better than the gloomiest forecasts made
just before the referendum of a Brexit-induced recession, it's not
exactly sparkling.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-18 09:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:56, pamela wrote:
> On 17:53 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 00:06, pamela wrote:
>>> On 21:37 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the low pound and global growth, both of which are
>>>>>>>>>>>> helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to
>>>>>>>>>>>> governments favouring financial markets, and that has
>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>>>>>>>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>>>>>>>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra £350
>>>>>>> million a week, have no new immigrants, enjoy cheap goods
>>>>>>> in the shops, bask in unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU
>>>>>>> rules (allegedly there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk
>>>>>>> according to "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled
>>>>>>> documentary).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down for
>>>>>> four quarters under the median projection. Second, you have
>>>>>> NO idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until we
>>>>>> leave. Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's the
>>>>> best joke I 've heard all day.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to regain
>>>> CONTROL, that's all. We want the numbers of immigrants and
>>>> their skills to match what we as a country need, rather than
>>>> just having hundreds of millions of people able to move here
>>>> and compete for jobs and resources. Why is that so hard to
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>> Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them
>>>> each a key? Simply because you want to control who comes in to
>>>> your house or flat. It doesn't mean you don't want them round
>>>> or that you dislike them. Quite the opposite. But you want to
>>>> maintain control. That's normal, just as it's normal for a
>>>> nation to control its own borders.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted against
>>>> Brexit didn't understand it. I'd like to think that once they
>>>> see how it is working out the penny will drop and then the
>>>> nation will start to come together.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. People do not want "controlled immigrants" here.
>>> They want fewer immigrants here.
>>
>> Brexit is not about NOW. It is about three, four, seven, twenty
>> and so on years in the future. If we had voted to Remain then
>> for all the years and decades ahead we faced a complete lack of
>> control over immigration from the EU27. But by voting to Leave
>> we have decided to take back control over all such matters and
>> the number of immigrants we need will VARY over time. Brexit
>> will allow the government to vary the numbers of people we let
>> in over time to suit the needs of both the economy and the
>> people who are already here.
>>
>> As it happens, you claimed that "Brexiteers want immigrants" was
>> nonsense but now you state that they do want immigrants, just
>> fewer of them. Haven't you contradicted yourself?
>
> I said Brexiteers do not want immigrants. You said they didn't
> mind as long as the numbers were controlled. However the public
> wants far fewer immigrants than the government is talking about
> permitting.

Even so, surely that confirms that Brexiteers want immigrants or, /some/
immigrants, if you prefer. I don't know of any Brexit supporter who
wants there to be /no/ immigrants. And anyone who felt that would be in
a very tiny minority.

As an example, I heard a caller to a radio phone-in the other day who,
from his voice, was as working-class Essex man as you could imagine. He
was railing about immigration. But when the host asked What about the
numbers being managed? he was Oh, yeah, mate, as long as it's kept under
proper control that's awright.

>
> Your "control" is one thing but it can still permit large numbers
> which are unacceptable to the public.

Surely it will be up to the government to manage the figures from year
to year. They could do a good job or a bad one, of course.

And that's the real change: it's not that the numbers will necessarily
go up or down in any particular year but that the /decision/ about the
UK's immigration policy will be taken in London rather than in Brussels.
Why does that matter? Because the politicians in London are accountable
to the British public. As long as Brexit goes ahead then whatever
changes our politicians make to immigration over the next years and
decades they know they will be held to account for them by voters. The
ones making the decision will be our servants, not our masters.
Democracy really does matter as it keeps that relationship as it ought
to be.

>
> By the way, leaving the EU has been set for a very specific date.
> The years after Britian exits the EU extend to infinity.
>
>>>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying that
>>>>> the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have already
>>>>> left by now (18 months after the referndum) and that the
>>>>> purported benefits such as £350 million a week would
>>>>> already be with us.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process is
>>>> a nominal two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see how
>>>> we could be out "by now".
>>>>
>>>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our own
>>>>>> import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we do
>>>>> not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling the
>>>>> ill effects.
>>>>
>>>> The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short
>>>> term but is helping heal the economy - and that matters more.
>>>
>>> What proof do you have that the fall in the pound, below that
>>> which the IMF judged necessary, is helping heal the economy?
>>
>> In 2014 the IMF said the high pound was preventing the economy
>> rebalancing away from an unhealthy reliance on domestic spending
>> and imports.
>
> The IMF also said very clearly that the pound fell more after the
> referendum than needed simply to correct the overvaluation.

I'd be surprised as it dropped 10% to 15%, didn't it, and the IMF said
before the referendum that the pound was 5% to 15% too high, IIRC.

Do you have a link?

>
> Furthermore any overvaluation was not being corrected by the
> markets and would probably have remained so if it wasn't for the
> referndum.

Agreed. So the referendum helped correct the overvaluation...?

>
>> From 2017 we read things like these:
>>
>> Tourists spent £2bn in Britain in the month, soaring by 20pc on
>> the year. That is the largest amount ever spent in the UK by
>> foreign visitors in the month of April.
>>
>> We overtook France in manufacturing.
>>
>> U.K. factories recorded their strongest growth in more than four
>> years in November, with firms recording strong domestic and
>> export demand.
>>
>> Venture capital investment into the UK's tech sector reached an
>> all-time high of £2.99bn, almost double the total invested in
>> 2016, according to figures compiled by data firm Pitchbook for
>> lobby group London & Partners. The UK's tech firms, dominated by
>> London, gained more venture capital investment in total than
>> Germany, France, Spain and Ireland combined.
>>
>> And much more.
>>
>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1155/Brexit-news
>
> The UK has fallen to the bottom of the growth league amongst
> developed nations and is currently lagging behind strong growth in
> the world economy. The pounds, as discussed, has fallen in value
> on account of Brexit. Wages are rising slower than inflation and
> general price rise levels are troubling

To take the points you mentioned.

* Fall in growth ranking. Agreed but not too important. UK growth for
2016 and 2017 was always going to be suppressed by uncertainty if we
voted to Leave the EU but even the pessimists predict growth to return
as certainty returns. And as I've said before, that growth should be
significantly stronger than it would have been if we had remained in the
EU.

* The fall in the pound is good and bad. I would suggest that while it
has some negative effects it is reacting to changing conditions, as it
should, and its recent period at a lower value is helping rejuvenate
parts of the economy that even some beers could not reach.

* Real-terms wages fell from 2008 to 2014. Then they rose sharply until
recently - second half of last year, possibly. But we'll surely see them
rise again if immigration is restricted thanks to Brexit. In fact, given
reports I've seen of comments by recruiters you might see them rise
again in real terms this year as the economy is booming and inflation is
expected to fall back.

Besides, a lot of the lurid media about "no wage rises for a decade"
were very misleading. As above, there /was/ a period of wage rises. The
truth is that wages had not returned to their pre-financial crisis
levels but the media put it across is if a lost decade was to come. It
wasn't. Even at the time of such reports, wages were rising and were
expected to continue to rise. Details in this link:

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1179/No-wage-growth-for-a-decade

>
> Although the outcome is better than the gloomiest forecasts made
> just before the referendum of a Brexit-induced recession, it's not
> exactly sparkling.

Agreed, though as I've said before, we are going through a massive
change. Just about all the forecasts I've seen said this period would be
worse than normal, with many forecasting recession which has turned out
to be far too pessimistic, but that they all predicted a return to good
growth as we come out the other side.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-18 11:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09:26 18 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 20:56, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:53 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2018 00:06, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 21:37 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 18:07 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 20:47, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20:34 13 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years after a solid three months to November
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beat all forecasts and put Britain on track to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pound-drives-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> British exports are being helped by the twin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits of the low pound and global growth, both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which are helping. On the currency, there's a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be made that the pound has long been overvalued
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall, took the fake top of the pound's value (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a bit more), and that is allowing more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial value-add industries to begin to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as production capacity takes time to re-form. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a good start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound
>>>>>>>>>>>>> low....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses
>>>>>>>>>>>> just do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would
>>>>>>>>>>>> bring the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps its a reaction or expectation to Project Fear?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't we now be in deep recession?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deep recession? Not according to Brexiteers. By now we
>>>>>>>> should be out of the EU, enjoying an extra
>>>>>>>> £350 million a week, have no new
>>>>>>>> immigrants, enjoy cheap goods in the shops, bask in
>>>>>>>> unopposed sovereignty, and obey no EU rules (allegedly
>>>>>>>> there are 10,000 EU "laws" governing milk according to
>>>>>>>> "Brexit: The Movie", a self-styled documentary).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What went wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, it was only to be a shallow recession - 0.1% down
>>>>>>> for four quarters under the median projection. Second, you
>>>>>>> have NO idea about Brexit! The money won't come back until
>>>>>>> we leave. Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brexiteers still want immigrants to come here." That's
>>>>>> the best joke I 've heard all day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, we want immigrants to come. We just want to
>>>>> regain CONTROL, that's all. We want the numbers of
>>>>> immigrants and their skills to match what we as a country
>>>>> need, rather than just having hundreds of millions of people
>>>>> able to move here and compete for jobs and resources. Why is
>>>>> that so hard to understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you like friends visiting you? If so, why not give them
>>>>> each a key? Simply because you want to control who comes in
>>>>> to your house or flat. It doesn't mean you don't want them
>>>>> round or that you dislike them. Quite the opposite. But you
>>>>> want to maintain control. That's normal, just as it's normal
>>>>> for a nation to control its own borders.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it confirmed more than once: many who voted
>>>>> against Brexit didn't understand it. I'd like to think that
>>>>> once they see how it is working out the penny will drop and
>>>>> then the nation will start to come together.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. People do not want "controlled immigrants" here.
>>>> They want fewer immigrants here.
>>>
>>> Brexit is not about NOW. It is about three, four, seven,
>>> twenty and so on years in the future. If we had voted to
>>> Remain then for all the years and decades ahead we faced a
>>> complete lack of control over immigration from the EU27. But
>>> by voting to Leave we have decided to take back control over
>>> all such matters and the number of immigrants we need will
>>> VARY over time. Brexit will allow the government to vary the
>>> numbers of people we let in over time to suit the needs of
>>> both the economy and the people who are already here.
>>>
>>> As it happens, you claimed that "Brexiteers want immigrants"
>>> was nonsense but now you state that they do want immigrants,
>>> just fewer of them. Haven't you contradicted yourself?
>>
>> I said Brexiteers do not want immigrants. You said they didn't
>> mind as long as the numbers were controlled. However the
>> public wants far fewer immigrants than the government is
>> talking about permitting.
>
> Even so, surely that confirms that Brexiteers want immigrants
> or, /some/ immigrants, if you prefer. I don't know of any Brexit
> supporter who wants there to be /no/ immigrants. And anyone who
> felt that would be in a very tiny minority.
>
> As an example, I heard a caller to a radio phone-in the other
> day who, from his voice, was as working-class Essex man as you
> could imagine. He was railing about immigration. But when the
> host asked What about the numbers being managed? he was Oh,
> yeah, mate, as long as it's kept under proper control that's
> awright.
>
>>
>> Your "control" is one thing but it can still permit large
>> numbers which are unacceptable to the public.
>
> Surely it will be up to the government to manage the figures
> from year to year. They could do a good job or a bad one, of
> course.
>
> And that's the real change: it's not that the numbers will
> necessarily go up or down in any particular year but that the
> /decision/ about the UK's immigration policy will be taken in
> London rather than in Brussels. Why does that matter? Because
> the politicians in London are accountable to the British public.
> As long as Brexit goes ahead then whatever changes our
> politicians make to immigration over the next years and decades
> they know they will be held to account for them by voters. The
> ones making the decision will be our servants, not our masters.
> Democracy really does matter as it keeps that relationship as it
> ought to be.
>
>>
>> By the way, leaving the EU has been set for a very specific
>> date. The years after Britian exits the EU extend to infinity.
>>
>>>>>> James, did you miss where I wrote "by now"? Iwas saying
>>>>>> that the expectation amongst Leavers is that we would have
>>>>>> already left by now (18 months after the referndum) and
>>>>>> that the purported benefits such as £350 million a
>>>>>> week would already be with us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you did say "by now" but since the Article 50 process
>>>>> is a nominal two years and we voted in June 2016 I don't see
>>>>> how we could be out "by now".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prices won't be affected much until we leave and set our
>>>>>>> own import duties. And similar for your other comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sentiment and the slump in the value of the pound means we
>>>>>> do not have to wait as long as Brexit-day to start feeling
>>>>>> the ill effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pound's drop brought some negative effects in the short
>>>>> term but is helping heal the economy - and that matters
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> What proof do you have that the fall in the pound, below that
>>>> which the IMF judged necessary, is helping heal the economy?
>>>
>>> In 2014 the IMF said the high pound was preventing the economy
>>> rebalancing away from an unhealthy reliance on domestic
>>> spending and imports.
>>
>> The IMF also said very clearly that the pound fell more after
>> the referendum than needed simply to correct the overvaluation.
>
> I'd be surprised as it dropped 10% to 15%, didn't it, and the
> IMF said before the referendum that the pound was 5% to 15% too
> high, IIRC.
>
> Do you have a link?
>
>>
>> Furthermore any overvaluation was not being corrected by the
>> markets and would probably have remained so if it wasn't for
>> the referndum.
>
> Agreed. So the referendum helped correct the overvaluation...?
>
>>
>>> From 2017 we read things like these:
>>>
>>> Tourists spent £2bn in Britain in the month, soaring by 20pc
>>> on the year. That is the largest amount ever spent in the UK
>>> by foreign visitors in the month of April.
>>>
>>> We overtook France in manufacturing.
>>>
>>> U.K. factories recorded their strongest growth in more than
>>> four years in November, with firms recording strong domestic
>>> and export demand.
>>>
>>> Venture capital investment into the UK's tech sector reached
>>> an all-time high of £2.99bn, almost double the total
>>> invested in 2016, according to figures compiled by data firm
>>> Pitchbook for lobby group London & Partners. The UK's tech
>>> firms, dominated by London, gained more venture capital
>>> investment in total than Germany, France, Spain and Ireland
>>> combined.
>>>
>>> And much more.
>>>
>>> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1155/Brexit-news
>>
>> The UK has fallen to the bottom of the growth league amongst
>> developed nations and is currently lagging behind strong growth
>> in the world economy. The pounds, as discussed, has fallen in
>> value on account of Brexit. Wages are rising slower than
>> inflation and general price rise levels are troubling
>
> To take the points you mentioned.
>
> * Fall in growth ranking. Agreed but not too important. UK
> growth for 2016 and 2017 was always going to be suppressed by
> uncertainty if we voted to Leave the EU but even the pessimists
> predict growth to return as certainty returns. And as I've said
> before, that growth should be significantly stronger than it
> would have been if we had remained in the EU.
>
> * The fall in the pound is good and bad. I would suggest that
> while it has some negative effects it is reacting to changing
> conditions, as it should, and its recent period at a lower value
> is helping rejuvenate parts of the economy that even some beers
> could not reach.
>
> * Real-terms wages fell from 2008 to 2014. Then they rose
> sharply until recently - second half of last year, possibly. But
> we'll surely see them rise again if immigration is restricted
> thanks to Brexit. In fact, given reports I've seen of comments
> by recruiters you might see them rise again in real terms this
> year as the economy is booming and inflation is expected to fall
> back.
>
> Besides, a lot of the lurid media about "no wage rises for a
> decade" were very misleading. As above, there /was/ a period of
> wage rises. The truth is that wages had not returned to their
> pre-financial crisis levels but the media put it across is if a
> lost decade was to come. It wasn't. Even at the time of such
> reports, wages were rising and were expected to continue to
> rise. Details in this link:
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1179/No-wage-growth-for-a-
de
> cade
>
> >
> > Although the outcome is better than the gloomiest forecasts
> > made just before the referendum of a Brexit-induced recession,
> > it's not exactly sparkling.
>
> Agreed, though as I've said before, we are going through a
> massive change. Just about all the forecasts I've seen said this
> period would be worse than normal, with many forecasting
> recession which has turned out to be far too pessimistic, but
> that they all predicted a return to good growth as we come out
> the other side.

You write: "I don't know of any Brexit supporter who wants there
to be /no/ immigrants."

You must live in a different place to me. I know many people
exactly like that.

Also, many UKIP supporters (although not Nigel Farage) wanted no
immigrants at all. Zero. To judge by the tone of their remarks,
would have been perfectly happy with mass deportations to achieve
this end. However they are resigned to accepting those immigrants
who are already here - only because they can't be shipped back,
not because they want them here.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-14 18:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>
>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>
>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>> footing.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound
>>>> and global growth, both of which are helping. On the currency,
>>>> there's a case to be made that the pound has long been
>>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>
>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took
>>>> the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and
>>>> that is allowing more substantial value-add industries to
>>>> begin to re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good
>>>> start.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>
>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending and
>>> expanding regardless.
>>>
>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>
>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the economy
>>> was going to fail and that would bring the prediction about.
>>
>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>> react properly.
>
> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>
> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or reaction
> to factors which the economists were studying?

Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.

--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-14 20:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
>>>> <james.harris.1 @gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>
>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>> footing.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-
>>>>> pound-drives- best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low
>>>>> pound and global growth, both of which are helping. On the
>>>>> currency, there's a case to be made that the pound has long
>>>>> been overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>> substance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to re-form.
>>>>> But it's a good start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>
>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending
>>>> and expanding regardless.
>>>>
>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>
>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the prediction
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>> didn't react properly.
>>
>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>
>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>
> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.

Like I said, it sounds like fake news.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-15 21:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:

...

>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come to
>>>>> pass was because consumers and businesses just do not realise
>>>>> how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on spending
>>>>> and expanding regardless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the prediction
>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>> didn't react properly.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>
>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>
> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.

Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the original story
but I have found a reference to it

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/951396403502338049


Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes, indeed....

--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-15 21:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>
>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>
>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>
> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the original
> story but I have found a reference to it
>
> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes, indeed....

Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't actually be
tracked down.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-15 21:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
>>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
>>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
>>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>
>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>
>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the original
>> story but I have found a reference to it
>>
>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes, indeed....
>
> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't actually be
> tracked down.

Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed to track it
down just to please you. Check the EIU website for recent reports if you
want to search.


--
James Harris
Yellow
2018-01-15 22:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:39:52 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
> > On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> >>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> >>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not come
> >>>>>>> to pass was because consumers and businesses just do not
> >>>>>>> realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have kept on
> >>>>>>> spending and expanding regardless.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
> >>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
> >>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
> >>>>>>> prediction about.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
> >>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
> >>>>>> public didn't react properly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
> >>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
> >>>
> >>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
> >>
> >> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the original
> >> story but I have found a reference to it
> >>
> >> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes, indeed....
> >
> > Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't actually be
> > tracked down.
>
> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed to track it
> down just to please you. Check the EIU website for recent reports if you
> want to search.

http://tinyurl.com/y7urp7ng

or

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-
explains-8


Why the British economy has done better than expected since the Brexit
vote

House prices are steady, unemployment has dropped, recession has been
avoided. This was not meant to happen

CHAOS was predicted. Following Britain's vote to leave the European
Union (EU) in June 2016, most economists believed that a recession was
imminent. A government study published in the run-up to the referendum
forecast that house prices would fall quickly, by up to a fifth, and
that unemployment would rise by over 800,000. But there has been no
recession. It is true that Britain has slipped down the international
league tables of GDP growth since the Brexit vote, but growth in both
2016 and 2017 still averaged around 2%, roughly similar to 2015.
Furthermore, house prices are steady and unemployment has dropped to a
42-year low of 4.3%. Disaster has been avoided. What went right?

The concept underlying the blood-curdling predictions before the
referendum was "uncertainty". No one has the foggiest idea about what
Britain's post-Brexit trading relationship with the EU will look like.
Economists worried that heightened uncertainty would prompt households
to rein in their spending and businesses to put investment plans on
hold. With the benefit of hindsight this looks naive. Leave voters got
what they wanted, so why should they cut back on spending? And for
Remainers, Brexit remains some way off: the country's status within the
customs union in 2020 is a distant worry for the average Briton.
Meanwhile, Britain remains an attractive place for foreign investors, in
part because of its trusted legal system and low rate of corporation
tax.

The global economy has also helped. The Brexit vote coincided with the
beginning of the first worldwide economic upswing in years. Global trade
volumes have grown decently, despite Donald Trump's scary rhetoric.
Firms from Seattle to Shanghai have recovered some of their animal
spirits and are willing to invest once again. Britain, an economy highly
dependent on international trade, has been swept along with everyone
else. And the country's exporters have been given an extra boost by the
depreciation of sterling, which is almost 10% below its pre-vote level.
In the past year real-terms exports have risen by a tenth, though the
British trade deficit remains in line with its post-financial-crisis
average.

The question is whether this unexpectedly good performance can continue.
As Britain's departure from the EU in March 2019 nears, businesses may
start to get more jittery, especially if they fear that a deal with the
EU will not be reached. If investment spending is cut, then consumers
will eventually start to feel the pinch. And Brexit itself, which is
likely to leave Britain with severely reduced access to its largest
export market, will have profoundly negative long-term economic
consequences. For now, however, the British economy continues to sail
blissfully into the unknown.
pamela
2018-01-16 00:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21:39 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
>> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>
>>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the
>>> original story but I have found a reference to it
>>>
>>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes,
>>> indeed....
>>
>> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't actually
>> be tracked down.
>
> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed to
> track it down just to please you. Check the EIU website for
> recent reports if you want to search.

Just as I thought, there's no factual account to back up your:

"story I read that economists were claiming they got the
predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
properly".

Your claim transposes cause and effect.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-16 17:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 00:09, pamela wrote:
> On 21:39 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
>>> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just do
>>>>>>>>> not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so have
>>>>>>>>> kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to fail
>>>>>>>>> because everyone would listen to the news that that the
>>>>>>>>> economy was going to fail and that would bring the
>>>>>>>>> prediction about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the
>>>> original story but I have found a reference to it
>>>>
>>>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes,
>>>> indeed....
>>>
>>> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't actually
>>> be tracked down.
>>
>> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed to
>> track it down just to please you. Check the EIU website for
>> recent reports if you want to search.
>
> Just as I thought, there's no factual account to back up your:
>
> "story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> properly".
>
> Your claim transposes cause and effect.

Not at all. I gave you a link to back up what I had read.

But you have made a claim. How do you know "there's no factual account"
to back it up? Have you researched the matter or are you guessing? Is it
that you don't want to believe what the tweeter said?

First, you obviously distrust the original report but I would be
surprised if that reporter would let himself be caught out lying.
Second, I don't know why he would even be motivated to lie. It would
completely undermine any other reports he might make.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 20:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17:59 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 00:09, pamela wrote:
>> On 21:39 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the
>>>>> original story but I have found a reference to it
>>>>>
>>>>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes,
>>>>> indeed....
>>>>
>>>> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't
>>>> actually be tracked down.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed
>>> to track it down just to please you. Check the EIU website for
>>> recent reports if you want to search.
>>
>> Just as I thought, there's no factual account to back up your:
>>
>> "story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>> properly".
>>
>> Your claim transposes cause and effect.
>
> Not at all. I gave you a link to back up what I had read.
>
> But you have made a claim. How do you know "there's no factual
> account" to back it up? Have you researched the matter or are
> you guessing? Is it that you don't want to believe what the
> tweeter said?
>
> First, you obviously distrust the original report but I would be
> surprised if that reporter would let himself be caught out
> lying. Second, I don't know why he would even be motivated to
> lie. It would completely undermine any other reports he might
> make.

james, you then posted a link to a tweet by Andrew Neil which
said:

"The Economist Intelligence Unit admits it was too pessimistic
about the prospects for the UK after the Brexit referendum. But
blames business/consumers for failing to understand the full
implications of leaving the EU. So companies kept on investing,
people spending."

That is very different to what you wrote:

"a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
properly. The public didn't do as the economists said they should.
Rotten spoil sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!"

Where does that Tweet refer to the British public failing to "react
properly" to the Economist's study in a way similar to ignoring
spreadsheet results?

It's not there. You made it up.
James Harris
2018-01-18 09:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:45, pamela wrote:
> On 17:59 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 00:09, pamela wrote:
>>> On 21:39 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses just
>>>>>>>>>>> do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to be so
>>>>>>>>>>> have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would bring
>>>>>>>>>>> the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the
>>>>>> original story but I have found a reference to it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes,
>>>>>> indeed....
>>>>>
>>>>> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't
>>>>> actually be tracked down.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed
>>>> to track it down just to please you. Check the EIU website for
>>>> recent reports if you want to search.
>>>
>>> Just as I thought, there's no factual account to back up your:
>>>
>>> "story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>>> properly".
>>>
>>> Your claim transposes cause and effect.
>>
>> Not at all. I gave you a link to back up what I had read.
>>
>> But you have made a claim. How do you know "there's no factual
>> account" to back it up? Have you researched the matter or are
>> you guessing? Is it that you don't want to believe what the
>> tweeter said?
>>
>> First, you obviously distrust the original report but I would be
>> surprised if that reporter would let himself be caught out
>> lying. Second, I don't know why he would even be motivated to
>> lie. It would completely undermine any other reports he might
>> make.
>
> james, you then posted a link to a tweet by Andrew Neil which
> said:
>
> "The Economist Intelligence Unit admits it was too pessimistic
> about the prospects for the UK after the Brexit referendum. But
> blames business/consumers for failing to understand the full
> implications of leaving the EU. So companies kept on investing,
> people spending."
>
> That is very different to what you wrote:
>
> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> properly. The public didn't do as the economists said they should.
> Rotten spoil sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!"
>
> Where does that Tweet refer to the British public failing to "react
> properly" to the Economist's study in a way similar to ignoring
> spreadsheet results?

The tweet does say that the EIU "blames" consumers "for failing to
understand the full implications of leaving the EU"... so they kept
spending. Surely the point being made is that the economy has held up
better than the EIU expected because customers didn't understand the
nightmare they were supposed to be facing and so they carried on as if
nothing had happened - and, therefore, nothing did!

>
> It's not there. You made it up.

Seriously, I began to reply with a mea culpa because as I said in an
earlier reply to you, "Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one
in passing." and I think that clearly indicates the comment was written
from memory.

But, as above, I think what I wrote was pretty close to the tweet - if
that's the report I had seen.

In fact, here's the EIU in its own words:

House prices are steady, unemployment has dropped, recession has been
avoided. This was not meant to happen

Economists worried that heightened uncertainty would prompt households
to rein in their spending and businesses to put investment plans on
hold. With the benefit of hindsight this looks naive. Leave voters got
what they wanted, so why should they cut back on spending? And for
Remainers, Brexit remains some way off: the country’s status within the
customs union in 2020 is a distant worry for the average Briton.
Meanwhile, Britain remains an attractive place for foreign investors, in
part because of its trusted legal system and low rate of corporation tax.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-18 11:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09:43 18 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 20:45, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:59 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2018 00:09, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 21:39 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2018 21:20, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 21:00 15 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 15:32, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read yesterday that the reason Project Fear has not
>>>>>>>>>>>> come to pass was because consumers and businesses
>>>>>>>>>>>> just do not realise how dreadful Brexit is going to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be so have kept on spending and expanding regardless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it said it was quoting The Economist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I took that to mean they expected the economy to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fail because everyone would listen to the news that
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the economy was going to fail and that would
>>>>>>>>>>>> bring the prediction about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, as above, Yellow saw it too. I haven't found the
>>>>>>> original story but I have found a reference to it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Referring to the Economist "Intelligence Unit". Yes,
>>>>>>> indeed....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like all successful fake news, the actual source can't
>>>>>> actually be tracked down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily, but I am not going to spend the time needed
>>>>> to track it down just to please you. Check the EIU website
>>>>> for recent reports if you want to search.
>>>>
>>>> Just as I thought, there's no factual account to back up
>>>> your:
>>>>
>>>> "story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>>>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>>> react properly".
>>>>
>>>> Your claim transposes cause and effect.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I gave you a link to back up what I had read.
>>>
>>> But you have made a claim. How do you know "there's no factual
>>> account" to back it up? Have you researched the matter or are
>>> you guessing? Is it that you don't want to believe what the
>>> tweeter said?
>>>
>>> First, you obviously distrust the original report but I would
>>> be surprised if that reporter would let himself be caught out
>>> lying. Second, I don't know why he would even be motivated to
>>> lie. It would completely undermine any other reports he might
>>> make.
>>
>> james, you then posted a link to a tweet by Andrew Neil which
>> said:
>>
>> "The Economist Intelligence Unit admits it was too
>> pessimistic about the prospects for the UK after the Brexit
>> referendum. But blames business/consumers for failing to
>> understand the full implications of leaving the EU. So
>> companies kept on investing, people spending."
>>
>> That is very different to what you wrote:
>>
>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>> properly. The public didn't do as the economists said they
>> should. Rotten spoil sports, ignoring those nice clean
>> spreadsheets!"
>>
>> Where does that Tweet refer to the British public failing to
>> "react properly" to the Economist's study in a way similar to
>> ignoring spreadsheet results?
>
> The tweet does say that the EIU "blames" consumers "for failing
> to understand the full implications of leaving the EU"... so
> they kept spending. Surely the point being made is that the
> economy has held up better than the EIU expected because
> customers didn't understand the nightmare they were supposed to
> be facing and so they carried on as if nothing had happened -
> and, therefore, nothing did!
>
>>
>> It's not there. You made it up.
>
> Seriously, I began to reply with a mea culpa because as I said
> in an earlier reply to you, "Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just
> saw that one in passing." and I think that clearly indicates the
> comment was written from memory.
>
> But, as above, I think what I wrote was pretty close to the
> tweet - if that's the report I had seen.
>
> In fact, here's the EIU in its own words:
>
> House prices are steady, unemployment has dropped, recession has
> been avoided. This was not meant to happen
>
> Economists worried that heightened uncertainty would prompt
> households to rein in their spending and businesses to put
> investment plans on hold. With the benefit of hindsight this
> looks naive. Leave voters got what they wanted, so why should
> they cut back on spending? And for Remainers, Brexit remains
> some way off: the country’s status within the customs union in
> 2020 is a distant worry for the average Briton. Meanwhile,
> Britain remains an attractive place for foreign investors, in
> part because of its trusted legal system and low rate of
> corporation tax.
>
> https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
> explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8

Where does it show that the public were told how to act by
economists but chose not to do so.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
kat
2018-01-15 23:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:


>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>> didn't react properly.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>
>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>
> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>
>

There is this report..
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

Near the end...

He blamed the profession’s reliance on models that were built for an age when
consumers and businesses, and especially banks, “behaved rationally”. Since
2008, consumers have maintained their spending when the classic economic models
would have expected them to be more circumspect.

or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted "wrongly".
--
kat
>^..^<
pamela
2018-01-16 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:

> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>
>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>
>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>
>
> There is this report..
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>
> Near the end...
>
> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks,
> behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their
> spending when the classic economic models would have expected
> them to be more circumspect.
>
> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted
> "wrongly".

It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It says
the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
maintined their spending.

That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:

"a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
properly."

His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
"properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
kat
2018-01-16 08:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>
>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>
>>
>> There is this report..
>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>
>> Near the end...
>>
>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks,
>> behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their
>> spending when the classic economic models would have expected
>> them to be more circumspect.
>>
>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted
>> "wrongly".
>
> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It says
> the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
> behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
> maintined their spending.
>
> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>
> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> properly."
>
> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>
>


All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas because
expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could be considered "wrong"
from the point of view of their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they
didn't act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.

Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's analysis. These
"experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they have total faith, use old, out
dated models with a world view of people acting in ways they consider
"rational". So much for expert opinion.


--
kat
>^..^<
pamela
2018-01-16 10:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is this report..
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>
>>> Near the end...
>>>
>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially
>>> banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have
>>> maintained their spending when the classic economic models
>>> would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>
>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>
>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
>> behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
>> maintined their spending.
>>
>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>
>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>> properly."
>>
>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>
>>
>
>
> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas
> because expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could
> be considered "wrong" from the point of view of their
> assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't act
> "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.

You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it wrong
because the public reacted "wrongly"".

I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
properly.

Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
version inverts cause and effect.

> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they
> have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world view of
> people acting in ways they consider "rational". So much for
> expert opinion.

The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far as
we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells it) but
James' recollection itself.

James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
someone else who had said that then they would be the original
source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating the
fake news.

Either way, the economists did not blame the public for failing to
act according to their model's predictions.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-16 18:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is this report..
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>
>>>> Near the end...
>>>>
>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially
>>>> banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have
>>>> maintained their spending when the classic economic models
>>>> would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>
>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>
>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
>>> behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
>>> maintined their spending.
>>>
>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>>> properly."
>>>
>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas
>> because expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could
>> be considered "wrong" from the point of view of their
>> assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't act
>> "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>
> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it wrong
> because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>
> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
> properly.
>
> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
> version inverts cause and effect.

Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you what I had
seen and later provided a link to exactly that type of report.

>
>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they
>> have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world view of
>> people acting in ways they consider "rational". So much for
>> expert opinion.
>
> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far as
> we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells it) but
> James' recollection itself.
>
> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating the
> fake news.

No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling something I had
read. I later provided a link to the kind of comment I had seen. And the
two match.

>
> Either way, the economists did not blame the public for failing to
> act according to their model's predictions.
>


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 20:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>
>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>
>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>>> react properly."
>>>>
>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>
>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>>
>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
>> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
>> properly.
>>
>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
>> version inverts cause and effect.
>
> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
> of report.

I asked to see that actual report. You said "type". Sly move,
James. Please post alink to the report. You wrote:

a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
properly.

I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened and
ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am inetrested in
is where you wrote "didn't react properly".

>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>>> much for expert opinion.
>>
>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
>> it) but James' recollection itself.
>>
>> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
>> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
>> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
>> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
>> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating
>> the fake news.
>
> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
> comment I had seen. And the two match.

"Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find it?
Does it exist?

>> Either way, the economists did not blame the public for failing
>> to act according to their model's predictions.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-18 10:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:28, pamela wrote:
> On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
>>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
>>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
>>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>>>> react properly."
>>>>>
>>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>>
>>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
>>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>>>
>>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
>>> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
>>> properly.
>>>
>>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
>>> version inverts cause and effect.
>>
>> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
>> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
>> of report.
>
> I asked to see that actual report.

And I said it was something I had seen in passing. I didn't keep a note
of it and I didn't record which comment or comments I had actually seen.
I just remembered the gist of what I had read. When you asked to see the
source of it I told you I was speaking about something I had seen in
passing. But I also took a look to see if I could find the story and
came across a tweet which may have been what I read, may have been one
comment of several I had read, or may have been similar to what I had read.

To repeat: it was a report I'd seen in passing. I didn't keep notes on
it or write it down word for word. But as I've already pointed out, my
recollection was much closer to the tweet than one would think normal
for something reliant on memory so I don't think you've anything to
complain about!

> You said "type". Sly move, James.

No, it's just being accurate. I read a lot during the day and may have
read the kind of comment which has so exercised you in one place or in
many. I did not keep a note of any of them. It was just a recollection
of something - or of more than one thing read. Hence, the tweet I found
after you asked for evidence was a "type" of the report that I had
initially mentioned. "Type" is exactly correct. I was not saying "this
is the comment I saw". I was saying "this is the type of comment I saw".
It is called being accurate!

> Please post alink to the report. You wrote:
>
> a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> properly.
>
> I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened and
> ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am inetrested in
> is where you wrote "didn't react properly".

As I've said repeatedly, I did not keep a link to any such report, but
this appears to be related

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8

Though it is likely not the only such report because the Andrew Neil
tweet was earlier. As I suggested above, such stories are picked up and
reported multiple times by different newspapers and var.

>
>>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>>>> much for expert opinion.
>>>
>>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
>>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
>>> it) but James' recollection itself.
>>>
>>> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
>>> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
>>> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
>>> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
>>> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating
>>> the fake news.
>>
>> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
>> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
>> comment I had seen. And the two match.
>
> "Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find it?
> Does it exist?

See above.


--
James Harris
Ophelia
2018-01-18 11:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:p3pr88$4u3$***@dont-email.me...

On 16/01/2018 20:28, pamela wrote:
> On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
>>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
>>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
>>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>>>> react properly."
>>>>>
>>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>>
>>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
>>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>>>
>>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
>>> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
>>> properly.
>>>
>>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
>>> version inverts cause and effect.
>>
>> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
>> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
>> of report.
>
> I asked to see that actual report.

And I said it was something I had seen in passing. I didn't keep a note
of it and I didn't record which comment or comments I had actually seen.
I just remembered the gist of what I had read. When you asked to see the
source of it I told you I was speaking about something I had seen in
passing. But I also took a look to see if I could find the story and
came across a tweet which may have been what I read, may have been one
comment of several I had read, or may have been similar to what I had read.

To repeat: it was a report I'd seen in passing. I didn't keep notes on
it or write it down word for word. But as I've already pointed out, my
recollection was much closer to the tweet than one would think normal
for something reliant on memory so I don't think you've anything to
complain about!

> You said "type". Sly move, James.

No, it's just being accurate. I read a lot during the day and may have
read the kind of comment which has so exercised you in one place or in
many. I did not keep a note of any of them. It was just a recollection
of something - or of more than one thing read. Hence, the tweet I found
after you asked for evidence was a "type" of the report that I had
initially mentioned. "Type" is exactly correct. I was not saying "this
is the comment I saw". I was saying "this is the type of comment I saw".
It is called being accurate!

> Please post alink to the report. You wrote:
>
> a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> properly.
>
> I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened and
> ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am inetrested in
> is where you wrote "didn't react properly".

As I've said repeatedly, I did not keep a link to any such report, but
this appears to be related

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8

Though it is likely not the only such report because the Andrew Neil
tweet was earlier. As I suggested above, such stories are picked up and
reported multiple times by different newspapers and var.

>
>>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>>>> much for expert opinion.
>>>
>>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
>>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
>>> it) but James' recollection itself.
>>>
>>> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
>>> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
>>> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
>>> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
>>> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating
>>> the fake news.
>>
>> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
>> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
>> comment I had seen. And the two match.
>
> "Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find it?
> Does it exist?

See above.

James Harris

==

He's playing you. He did it to Yellow when he first arrived.
Yellow
2018-01-18 13:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:20:27 -0000, Ophelia <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> "James Harris" wrote in message news:p3pr88$4u3$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 16/01/2018 20:28, pamela wrote:
> > On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
> >>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
> >>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
> >>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
> >>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
> >>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
> >>>>>>>> passing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is this report..
> >>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
> >>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Near the end...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
> >>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
> >>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
> >>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
> >>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
> >>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
> >>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
> >>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
> >>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
> >>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
> >>>>> react properly."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
> >>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
> >>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
> >>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
> >>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
> >>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
> >>>
> >>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
> >>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
> >>>
> >>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
> >>> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
> >>> properly.
> >>>
> >>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
> >>> version inverts cause and effect.
> >>
> >> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
> >> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
> >> of report.
> >
> > I asked to see that actual report.
>
> And I said it was something I had seen in passing. I didn't keep a note
> of it and I didn't record which comment or comments I had actually seen.
> I just remembered the gist of what I had read. When you asked to see the
> source of it I told you I was speaking about something I had seen in
> passing. But I also took a look to see if I could find the story and
> came across a tweet which may have been what I read, may have been one
> comment of several I had read, or may have been similar to what I had read.
>
> To repeat: it was a report I'd seen in passing. I didn't keep notes on
> it or write it down word for word. But as I've already pointed out, my
> recollection was much closer to the tweet than one would think normal
> for something reliant on memory so I don't think you've anything to
> complain about!
>
> > You said "type". Sly move, James.
>
> No, it's just being accurate. I read a lot during the day and may have
> read the kind of comment which has so exercised you in one place or in
> many. I did not keep a note of any of them. It was just a recollection
> of something - or of more than one thing read. Hence, the tweet I found
> after you asked for evidence was a "type" of the report that I had
> initially mentioned. "Type" is exactly correct. I was not saying "this
> is the comment I saw". I was saying "this is the type of comment I saw".
> It is called being accurate!
>
> > Please post alink to the report. You wrote:
> >
> > a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> > predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> > properly.
> >
> > I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened and
> > ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am inetrested in
> > is where you wrote "didn't react properly".
>
> As I've said repeatedly, I did not keep a link to any such report, but
> this appears to be related
>
> https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8
>
> Though it is likely not the only such report because the Andrew Neil
> tweet was earlier. As I suggested above, such stories are picked up and
> reported multiple times by different newspapers and var.
>
> >
> >>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
> >>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
> >>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
> >>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
> >>>> much for expert opinion.
> >>>
> >>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
> >>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
> >>> it) but James' recollection itself.
> >>>
> >>> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
> >>> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
> >>> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
> >>> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
> >>> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating
> >>> the fake news.
> >>
> >> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
> >> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
> >> comment I had seen. And the two match.
> >
> > "Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find it?
> > Does it exist?
>
> See above.
>
> James Harris
>
> ==
>
> He's playing you. He did it to Yellow when he first arrived.

Indeed - replying to Pamela is the same waste of effort as is replying
to MM, and to a point to Hamster, because you do not get any kind of
discussion. It is all about scoring those points.

Which is a shame as it is interesting to discuss topics from differing
points of view as it helps to form your own opinion. But if people are
simply going to take an opposing view for sport, as per Pamela and MM,
you are just entertaining them by replying while wasting your own time.

That is how I see it, anyway.
Ophelia
2018-01-18 14:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message
news:***@News.Individual.NET...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:20:27 -0000, Ophelia <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> "James Harris" wrote in message news:p3pr88$4u3$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 16/01/2018 20:28, pamela wrote:
> > On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
> >>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
> >>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
> >>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
> >>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
> >>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
> >>>>>>>> passing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is this report..
> >>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
> >>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Near the end...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
> >>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
> >>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
> >>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
> >>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
> >>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
> >>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
> >>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
> >>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
> >>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
> >>>>> react properly."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
> >>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
> >>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
> >>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
> >>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
> >>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
> >>>
> >>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
> >>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
> >>>
> >>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
> >>> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
> >>> properly.
> >>>
> >>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
> >>> version inverts cause and effect.
> >>
> >> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
> >> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
> >> of report.
> >
> > I asked to see that actual report.
>
> And I said it was something I had seen in passing. I didn't keep a note
> of it and I didn't record which comment or comments I had actually seen.
> I just remembered the gist of what I had read. When you asked to see the
> source of it I told you I was speaking about something I had seen in
> passing. But I also took a look to see if I could find the story and
> came across a tweet which may have been what I read, may have been one
> comment of several I had read, or may have been similar to what I had
> read.
>
> To repeat: it was a report I'd seen in passing. I didn't keep notes on
> it or write it down word for word. But as I've already pointed out, my
> recollection was much closer to the tweet than one would think normal
> for something reliant on memory so I don't think you've anything to
> complain about!
>
> > You said "type". Sly move, James.
>
> No, it's just being accurate. I read a lot during the day and may have
> read the kind of comment which has so exercised you in one place or in
> many. I did not keep a note of any of them. It was just a recollection
> of something - or of more than one thing read. Hence, the tweet I found
> after you asked for evidence was a "type" of the report that I had
> initially mentioned. "Type" is exactly correct. I was not saying "this
> is the comment I saw". I was saying "this is the type of comment I saw".
> It is called being accurate!
>
> > Please post alink to the report. You wrote:
> >
> > a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> > predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> > properly.
> >
> > I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened and
> > ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am inetrested in
> > is where you wrote "didn't react properly".
>
> As I've said repeatedly, I did not keep a link to any such report, but
> this appears to be related
>
> https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8
>
> Though it is likely not the only such report because the Andrew Neil
> tweet was earlier. As I suggested above, such stories are picked up and
> reported multiple times by different newspapers and var.
>
> >
> >>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
> >>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
> >>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
> >>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
> >>>> much for expert opinion.
> >>>
> >>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
> >>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
> >>> it) but James' recollection itself.
> >>>
> >>> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
> >>> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
> >>> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
> >>> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
> >>> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating
> >>> the fake news.
> >>
> >> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
> >> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
> >> comment I had seen. And the two match.
> >
> > "Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find it?
> > Does it exist?
>
> See above.
>
> James Harris
>
> ==
>
> He's playing you. He did it to Yellow when he first arrived.

Indeed - replying to Pamela is the same waste of effort as is replying
to MM, and to a point to Hamster, because you do not get any kind of
discussion. It is all about scoring those points.

Which is a shame as it is interesting to discuss topics from differing
points of view as it helps to form your own opinion. But if people are
simply going to take an opposing view for sport, as per Pamela and MM,
you are just entertaining them by replying while wasting your own time.

That is how I see it, anyway.

==

+1
pamela
2018-01-18 11:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10:00 18 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 20:28, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:06 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>>>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>>>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008,
>>>>>>> consumers have maintained their spending when the classic
>>>>>>> economic models would have expected them to be more
>>>>>>> circumspect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all.
>>>>>> It says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>>>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they
>>>>>> got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>>>> didn't react properly."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not
>>>>>> acting "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake
>>>>>> news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they
>>>>> didn't act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or
>>>>> improperly.
>>>>
>>>> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it
>>>> wrong because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>>>>
>>>> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to
>>>> James' recollection that the economists claimed the people
>>>> didn't act properly.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
>>>> version inverts cause and effect.
>>>
>>> Your attempts at distortion are not working, Pam. I told you
>>> what I had seen and later provided a link to exactly that type
>>> of report.
>>
>> I asked to see that actual report.
>
> And I said it was something I had seen in passing. I didn't keep
> a note of it and I didn't record which comment or comments I had
> actually seen. I just remembered the gist of what I had read.
> When you asked to see the source of it I told you I was speaking
> about something I had seen in passing. But I also took a look to
> see if I could find the story and came across a tweet which may
> have been what I read, may have been one comment of several I
> had read, or may have been similar to what I had read.
>
> To repeat: it was a report I'd seen in passing. I didn't keep
> notes on it or write it down word for word. But as I've already
> pointed out, my recollection was much closer to the tweet than
> one would think normal for something reliant on memory so I
> don't think you've anything to complain about!
>
>> You said "type". Sly move, James.
>
> No, it's just being accurate. I read a lot during the day and
> may have read the kind of comment which has so exercised you in
> one place or in many. I did not keep a note of any of them. It
> was just a recollection of something - or of more than one thing
> read. Hence, the tweet I found after you asked for evidence was
> a "type" of the report that I had initially mentioned. "Type" is
> exactly correct. I was not saying "this is the comment I saw". I
> was saying "this is the type of comment I saw". It is called
> being accurate!

It is called admitting decption. Let me explain. You state something
as a hard fact but it turns out that it is essentially unsourced
because you have no idea where or when you heard the info. It
follows that you have no idea of its accuracy.

So then you rely on the get out word "type". However all it serves
to illustrate is how poorly founded your initial falsely-confident
assertion was.

>> Please post alink to the report. You wrote:
>>
>> a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>> properly.
>>
>> I put it to you that is a false representation of what happened
>> and ask, once again, for a link to the story. The bit I am
>> inetrested in is where you wrote "didn't react properly".
>
> As I've said repeatedly, I did not keep a link to any such
> report, but this appears to be related
>
> https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/
> economist-explains-8
>
> Though it is likely not the only such report because the Andrew
> Neil tweet was earlier. As I suggested above, such stories are
> picked up and reported multiple times by different newspapers
> and var.

The Andrew Neil tweet does not support your assertion which is:

"a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
properly. The public didn't do as the economists said they should.
Rotten spoil sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets!"

Neil does not talk about the public refusing to behave in the way
determined in the results of economists' calculations.

>>>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news,
>>>>> it's analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of
>>>>> whom they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a
>>>>> world view of people acting in ways they consider
>>>>> "rational". So much for expert opinion.
>>>>
>>>> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far
>>>> as we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells
>>>> it) but James' recollection itself.
>>>>
>>>> James' recollection creates a false impression that
>>>> economists were blaming the public for not behaving properly.
>>>> That's the fake news. If, as it happens, James was
>>>> accurately reporting someone else who had said that then they
>>>> would be the original source of the fake news and James just
>>>> a mouthpiece repeating the fake news.
>>>
>>> No, I was very clear at the outset that I was recalling
>>> something I had read. I later provided a link to the kind of
>>> comment I had seen. And the two match.
>>
>> "Kind of" is not the same as the actual thing. Can't you find
>> it? Does it exist?
>
> See above.

So you recall something you read but can't say where it was from nor
how accurate it is and you add an incorrect observation that: "The
public didn't do as the economists said they should. Rotten spoil
sports, ignoring those nice clean spreadsheets".
kat
2018-01-16 21:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 10:39, pamela wrote:
> On 08:18 16 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is this report..
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>
>>>> Near the end...
>>>>
>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially
>>>> banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have
>>>> maintained their spending when the classic economic models
>>>> would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>
>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>
>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
>>> behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
>>> maintined their spending.
>>>
>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>>> properly."
>>>
>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas
>> because expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could
>> be considered "wrong" from the point of view of their
>> assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't act
>> "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>
> You wrote, "This is the report" and ended with "they got it wrong
> because the public reacted "wrongly"".
>
> I understand you used "wrongly" as a way of referring to James'
> recollection that the economists claimed the people didn't act
> properly.
>
> Whatever you want to call it, Wrongly or Not Properly, James'
> version inverts cause and effect.
>
>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they
>> have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world view of
>> people acting in ways they consider "rational". So much for
>> expert opinion.
>
> The fake news is not the very origin reporting (which, as far as
> we can find, doesn't present the info the way James tells it) but
> James' recollection itself.
>
> James' recollection creates a false impression that economists
> were blaming the public for not behaving properly. That's the
> fake news. If, as it happens, James was accurately reporting
> someone else who had said that then they would be the original
> source of the fake news and James just a mouthpiece repeating the
> fake news.
>
> Either way, the economists did not blame the public for failing to
> act according to their model's predictions.
>

No, just use them as an excuse for their predictions not coming to pass.

--
kat
>^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-16 15:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:18:02 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
> > On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
> >>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
> >>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
> >>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
> >>>>>> public didn't react properly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
> >>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
> >>>
> >>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is this report..
> >> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
> >> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
> >>
> >> Near the end...
> >>
> >> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
> >> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks,
> >> behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their
> >> spending when the classic economic models would have expected
> >> them to be more circumspect.
> >>
> >> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted
> >> "wrongly".
> >
> > It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It says
> > the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
> > behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
> > maintined their spending.
> >
> > That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
> >
> > "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
> > predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
> > properly."
> >
> > His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
> > "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
> >
> >
>
>
> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas because
> expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could be considered "wrong"
> from the point of view of their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they
> didn't act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>
> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's analysis. These
> "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they have total faith, use old, out
> dated models with a world view of people acting in ways they consider
> "rational". So much for expert opinion.

Yes, you have that spot on. Forecasts are often the product of modelling
which then begs the question - how was the model created?

George Box 1970 - 'all models are wrong, but some are useful'.

I think I have mentioned before the project that concluded, in all
seriousness, that women born in March were more likely to become
prostitutes than if they were born in any other month. :-)

While you can see the funny side, understanding how the model went so
very wrong even though it was created by extremely clever people who
thought they understood how to create models, is an eye opener. Can't
find any links to the story by googling, keep getting hits on models who
are prostitutes - which is a shame. I studied this as part of an MIT
course on programming that covered modelling and simulations that I took
a few years ago.

The moral is - never blindly accept the results, the output, of a survey
or of a forecast or computer model without seeing the the input too.

"95% of climate models agree so the observations must be wrong"
pamela
2018-01-16 20:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15:56 16 Jan 2018, Yellow wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:18:02 +0000, kat
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>> > On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> >>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>> >>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>> >>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>> >>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>> >>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>> >>>> passing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> There is this report..
>> >> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>> >> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>> >>
>> >> Near the end...
>> >>
>> >> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>> >> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>> >> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
>> >> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
>> >> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>> >>
>> >> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>> >> reacted "wrongly".
>> >
>> > It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>> > says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>> > actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>> > consumers who maintined their spending.
>> >
>> > That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>> >
>> > "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>> > the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>> > react properly."
>> >
>> > His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>> > "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>
>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>> much for expert opinion.
>
> Yes, you have that spot on. Forecasts are often the product of
> modelling which then begs the question - how was the model
> created?
>
> George Box 1970 - 'all models are wrong, but some are useful'.
>
> I think I have mentioned before the project that concluded, in
> all seriousness, that women born in March were more likely to
> become prostitutes than if they were born in any other month.
> :-)
>
> While you can see the funny side, understanding how the model
> went so very wrong even though it was created by extremely
> clever people who thought they understood how to create models,
> is an eye opener. Can't find any links to the story by googling,
> keep getting hits on models who are prostitutes - which is a
> shame. I studied this as part of an MIT course on programming
> that covered modelling and simulations that I took a few years
> ago.
>
> The moral is - never blindly accept the results, the output, of
> a survey or of a forecast or computer model without seeing the
> the input too.
>
> "95% of climate models agree so the observations must be wrong"

It's strange how you advocate seeing the original data before
reaching a conclusion but you then disparage the result of a
project whose data you can't even find.

Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
for the general population. What evidence do you have to
demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
their most popular birth month as March?
kat
2018-01-16 21:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:

>
> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
> for the general population. What evidence do you have to
> demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
> their most popular birth month as March?
>

I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of my
children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family, has a
birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)

--
kat
>^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-16 22:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
>
> >
> > Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
> > for the general population. What evidence do you have to
> > demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
> > their most popular birth month as March?
> >
>
> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of my
> children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family, has a
> birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?

The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their model was
flawed and you are not in fact more likely to become a prostitute simply
because you were born in March. :-)

But the study was published in all seriousness and took other people
coming along and looking at the source data to point out the errors that
generated an incorrect result.
kat
2018-01-16 23:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 22:47, Yellow wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
>>> for the general population. What evidence do you have to
>>> demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
>>> their most popular birth month as March?
>>>
>>
>> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of my
>> children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family, has a
>> birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)
>
> Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?
>
> The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their model was
> flawed and you are not in fact more likely to become a prostitute simply
> because you were born in March. :-)
>
> But the study was published in all seriousness and took other people
> coming along and looking at the source data to point out the errors that
> generated an incorrect result.
>


You did explain - I was replying ( somewhat tongue in cheek ) to pamela who
seemed to want evidence. :-)

--
kat
>^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-17 00:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:42:57 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 22:47, Yellow wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
> >>> for the general population. What evidence do you have to
> >>> demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
> >>> their most popular birth month as March?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of my
> >> children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family, has a
> >> birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)
> >
> > Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?
> >
> > The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their model was
> > flawed and you are not in fact more likely to become a prostitute simply
> > because you were born in March. :-)
> >
> > But the study was published in all seriousness and took other people
> > coming along and looking at the source data to point out the errors that
> > generated an incorrect result.
> >
>
>
> You did explain - I was replying ( somewhat tongue in cheek ) to pamela who
> seemed to want evidence. :-)

Ah, I see :-)

But you do have to wonder why Pamela would conclude the MIT professor
who told the story as a teaching tool is a liar, given that the normal
line is that we should trust the experts unreservedly.

So it seems even in "Pamela World", it is OK to dismiss expert testimony
if you do not happen to like the message. :-D
kat
2018-01-17 09:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/01/2018 00:26, Yellow wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:42:57 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/01/2018 22:47, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
>>>>> for the general population. What evidence do you have to
>>>>> demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
>>>>> their most popular birth month as March?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of my
>>>> children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family, has a
>>>> birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)
>>>
>>> Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?
>>>
>>> The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their model was
>>> flawed and you are not in fact more likely to become a prostitute simply
>>> because you were born in March. :-)
>>>
>>> But the study was published in all seriousness and took other people
>>> coming along and looking at the source data to point out the errors that
>>> generated an incorrect result.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You did explain - I was replying ( somewhat tongue in cheek ) to pamela who
>> seemed to want evidence. :-)
>
> Ah, I see :-)
>
> But you do have to wonder why Pamela would conclude the MIT professor
> who told the story as a teaching tool is a liar, given that the normal
> line is that we should trust the experts unreservedly.
>
> So it seems even in "Pamela World", it is OK to dismiss expert testimony
> if you do not happen to like the message. :-D
>

And yet we are not supposed to do the same. ;-)

Seriously, I know nothing about how to create these models, but in that link I
gave above, the Bank of England's chief economist blamed the failure of economic
models to cope with "irrational behaviour" in the modern era. Who decides what
is "rational" and what is "irrational" ? He says they need to work to regain
the trust of the public and the politicians. Maybe, for example, they assume
if they forecast a recession we will behave in a certain way ( rationally? ),
and as we don't believe the forecast due to the lack of trust, we don't behave
that way, and that prevents the recession?

I don't know, I don't pretend to know, but it makes you think more about it all
when you have your professor also talking of wrong models.

--
kat
>^..^<
Ophelia
2018-01-17 10:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message
news:***@News.Individual.NET...

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:42:57 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2018 22:47, Yellow wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat <***@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in the UK
> >>> for the general population. What evidence do you have to
> >>> demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America don't have
> >>> their most popular birth month as March?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one third of
> >> my
> >> children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and no-one else in my family,
> >> has a
> >> birthday in September, while there are 4 in March and no-one is a
> >> prostitute. :-)
> >
> > Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?
> >
> > The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their model was
> > flawed and you are not in fact more likely to become a prostitute simply
> > because you were born in March. :-)
> >
> > But the study was published in all seriousness and took other people
> > coming along and looking at the source data to point out the errors that
> > generated an incorrect result.
> >
>
>
> You did explain - I was replying ( somewhat tongue in cheek ) to pamela
> who
> seemed to want evidence. :-)

Ah, I see :-)

But you do have to wonder why Pamela would conclude the MIT professor
who told the story as a teaching tool is a liar, given that the normal
line is that we should trust the experts unreservedly.

So it seems even in "Pamela World", it is OK to dismiss expert testimony
if you do not happen to like the message. :-D

==

Was it ever in doubt?
pamela
2018-01-17 12:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 00:26 17 Jan 2018, Yellow wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:42:57 +0000, kat
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/01/2018 22:47, Yellow wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat
>> > <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 16/01/2018 20:38, pamela wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Furthermore, September is the most popular birth month in
>> >>> the UK for the general population. What evidence do you
>> >>> have to demonstrate those working as prostitutes in America
>> >>> don't have their most popular birth month as March?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I would dismiss both statements on the grounds that only one
>> >> third of my children, one fifth of my grandchildren, and
>> >> no-one else in my family, has a birthday in September, while
>> >> there are 4 in March and no-one is a prostitute. :-)
>> >
>> > Maybe I didn't explain myself very well?
>> >
>> > The point is their result was a load of rubbish because their
>> > model was flawed and you are not in fact more likely to
>> > become a prostitute simply because you were born in March.
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > But the study was published in all seriousness and took other
>> > people coming along and looking at the source data to point
>> > out the errors that generated an incorrect result.
>> >
>>
>>
>> You did explain - I was replying ( somewhat tongue in cheek )
>> to pamela who seemed to want evidence. :-)
>
> Ah, I see :-)
>
> But you do have to wonder why Pamela would conclude the MIT
> professor who told the story as a teaching tool is a liar, given
> that the normal line is that we should trust the experts
> unreservedly.
>
> So it seems even in "Pamela World", it is OK to dismiss expert
> testimony if you do not happen to like the message. :-D

The lecturer was clearly correct but you have shown arrogance and
miscomprehension by posting it here. The exercise was likely to
code a probability distribution which, in an example, showed more
prostitutes born in March than any other month. This may have
arisen from a general population trend to be born in particular
month or a quirk of the prostitute subset. You don't mention the
degree of significance, if any, of the modal value.

From that you then wrongly inferred if you take a given individual
prostitute she is more likely to have been born in March - which
is untrue if the modal probability was caused only by more people
in general born in that month.

Your arrogance specifically comes from posting this ordinary
example as one of dodgy statistics rather than dodgy
comprehension. I take it you went on the course because you
needed it but you don't seem to have learned much and it's no
surprise you mentioned you were sacked from your job as a
programmer and went on to work in type approvals for electrical
switchgear which didn't need any real understanding of statistics.
I can only hope you didn't offer the real engineers such
misinformed insights.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-16 18:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 08:18, kat wrote:
> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the British
>>>>>>> public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is this report..
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>
>>> Near the end...
>>>
>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks,
>>> behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their
>>> spending when the classic economic models would have expected
>>> them to be more circumspect.
>>>
>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted
>>> "wrongly".
>>
>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It says
>> the model was out of date and failed to predict the actual
>> behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers who
>> maintined their spending.
>>
>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>
>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got the
>> predictions wrong because the British public didn't react
>> properly."
>>
>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>
>>
>
>
> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted commas because
> expected them to act "rationally" so anything else could be considered "wrong"
> from the point of view of their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they
> didn't act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>
> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's analysis. These
> "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom they have total faith, use old, out
> dated models with a world view of people acting in ways they consider
> "rational". So much for expert opinion.

Good point. Pam puts faith in economists who say what she wants to hear
but when they say something she doesn't like she equivocates. She even
says above that the forecast was wrong "because it didn't take into
account consumers who maintined their spending". Just a few weeks ago,
trying to get Pam to accept that a forecaster had not taken something
into account would have been taken as a calumny.

BTW, thanks for the link to the Guardian.

--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-16 20:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:03 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 08:18, kat wrote:
>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is this report..
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>
>>>> Near the end...
>>>>
>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially
>>>> banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have
>>>> maintained their spending when the classic economic models
>>>> would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>
>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>
>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers
>>> who maintined their spending.
>>>
>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>> react properly."
>>>
>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>
>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>> much for expert opinion.
>
> Good point. Pam puts faith in economists who say what she wants
> to hear but when they say something she doesn't like she
> equivocates.

Saying so doesn't make it a fact. Do you have any proof of that?

> She even says above that the forecast was wrong "because it
> didn't take into account consumers who maintined their
> spending".

No, I don't say that.

> Just a few weeks ago, trying to get Pam to accept that a
> forecaster had not taken something into account would have been
> taken as a calumny.

Rubbish. I said some forecasts are more accurate than others and
to disparage all forecasts on the grounds they are not totally
accurrate is unreasonable.




--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
kat
2018-01-16 21:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:31, pamela wrote:

>
> Rubbish. I said some forecasts are more accurate than others and
> to disparage all forecasts on the grounds they are not totally
> accurrate is unreasonable.
>
>

Indeed. I made a very accurate forecast when Gordon Brown decided pension funds
had too much spare money, and he'd have some of it.
--
kat
>^..^<
James Harris
2018-01-18 10:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/01/2018 20:31, pamela wrote:
> On 18:03 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 08:18, kat wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>
>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>
>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were built
>>>>> for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially
>>>>> banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers have
>>>>> maintained their spending when the classic economic models
>>>>> would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account consumers
>>>> who maintined their spending.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public didn't
>>>> react properly."
>>>>
>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>>
>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>>> much for expert opinion.
>>
>> Good point. Pam puts faith in economists who say what she wants
>> to hear but when they say something she doesn't like she
>> equivocates.
>
> Saying so doesn't make it a fact. Do you have any proof of that?

Weren't you very keen recently to trust and defend the OECD because they
are experts even after we'd discussed that they chose to omit remedial
actions by the MPC from the input assumptions to their Brexit forecast?

>
>> She even says above that the forecast was wrong "because it
>> didn't take into account consumers who maintined their
>> spending".
>
> No, I don't say that.

Sorry, then I misunderstood.


>
>> Just a few weeks ago, trying to get Pam to accept that a
>> forecaster had not taken something into account would have been
>> taken as a calumny.
>
> Rubbish. I said some forecasts are more accurate than others and
> to disparage all forecasts on the grounds they are not totally
> accurrate is unreasonable.

OK. I would say to expect any forecasts to be totally accurate is naive.


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-18 11:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10:10 18 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 20:31, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:03 16 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2018 08:18, kat wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2018 00:15, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 23:06 15 Jan 2018, kat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18:03 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17:13 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming they got the predictions wrong because the
>>>>>>>>>> British public didn't react properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>>>>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in
>>>>>>>> passing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this report..
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-
>>>>>> economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Near the end...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He blamed the profession's reliance on models that were
>>>>>> built for an age when consumers and businesses, and
>>>>>> especially banks, behaved rationally. Since 2008, consumers
>>>>>> have maintained their spending when the classic economic
>>>>>> models would have expected them to be more circumspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public
>>>>>> reacted "wrongly".
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't say that the public reacted "wrongly" at all. It
>>>>> says the model was out of date and failed to predict the
>>>>> actual behaviour because it didn't take into account
>>>>> consumers who maintined their spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is quite different from what James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "a story I read that economists were claiming they got
>>>>> the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>>> didn't react properly."
>>>>>
>>>>> His version has economists claiming consumers did not acting
>>>>> "properly". What a distortion of the truth. Fake news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of that is just words. I put "wrongly" in inverted
>>>> commas because expected them to act "rationally" so anything
>>>> else could be considered "wrong" from the point of view of
>>>> their assumptions. It is just the same as saying they didn't
>>>> act "properly". People didn't act wrongly or improperly.
>>>>
>>>> Now we come to the point don't we. This isn't fake news, it's
>>>> analysis. These "experts" upon whom Remainers rely, of whom
>>>> they have total faith, use old, out dated models with a world
>>>> view of people acting in ways they consider "rational". So
>>>> much for expert opinion.
>>>
>>> Good point. Pam puts faith in economists who say what she
>>> wants to hear but when they say something she doesn't like she
>>> equivocates.
>>
>> Saying so doesn't make it a fact. Do you have any proof of
>> that?
>
> Weren't you very keen recently to trust and defend the OECD
> because they are experts even after we'd discussed that they
> chose to omit remedial actions by the MPC from the input
> assumptions to their Brexit forecast?

That doesn't prove anything about my "faith" or when I might
"equivocate".

>>> She even says above that the forecast was wrong "because it
>>> didn't take into account consumers who maintined their
>>> spending".
>>
>> No, I don't say that.
>
> Sorry, then I misunderstood.
>>
>>> Just a few weeks ago, trying to get Pam to accept that a
>>> forecaster had not taken something into account would have
>>> been taken as a calumny.
>>
>> Rubbish. I said some forecasts are more accurate than others
>> and to disparage all forecasts on the grounds they are not
>> totally accurrate is unreasonable.
>
> OK. I would say to expect any forecasts to be totally accurate
> is naive.

Agreed. It is rare to find a total accurate forceast although the
IMF prediction of the UK economy following Brexit was unusually
accurate:

"Regrettably, the numbers that we are seeing the economy
deliver today are actually proving the point we made a year and
a half ago when people said you are too gloomy and you are one
of those 'experts', Lagarde said, in an apparent reference to
Michael Gove's claim that the British people have "had enough
of experts".

As I recall, the IMF prediction was within 0.1% of the December
2017 outcome.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Martin Brown
2018-01-17 15:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/01/2018 23:06, kat wrote:
> On 14/01/2018 20:57, pamela wrote:
>> On 18:03  14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2018 11:18, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:13  12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>>>>> That sounds like a story I read that economists were claiming
>>>>> they got the predictions wrong because the British public
>>>>> didn't react properly.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fake news story to me.
>>>>
>>>> Was that reaction to the economists (as you suggest) or
>>>> reaction to factors which the economists were studying?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't keep a link. I just saw that one in passing.
>>
>> Like I said, it sounds like fake news.
>
> There is this report..
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
>
> Near the end...
>
> He blamed the profession’s reliance on models that were built for an age
> when consumers and businesses, and especially banks, “behaved
> rationally”. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their spending when
> the classic economic models would have expected them to be more
> circumspect.
>
> or, in other words, they got it wrong because the public reacted "wrongly".

Sadly that is the case.

Economics makes the not entirely unreasonable assumption that people
will mostly act in their own best interests.

However, this has been shown not to be the case and people have stoked
up debt that they may never be able to repay. Same with speculating that
house prices and Bitcoin (or tulips) will keep on rising forever.

NB Bitcoin dropped below $10k today.

It is sort of sustainable as long as interest rates remain ridiculously
low but expect chaos if the base rate were to rise by as little as 2%.

Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
R. Mark Clayton
2018-01-12 16:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>
> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>
> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>
>
> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>
> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>
> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>
>
> --
> James Harris

A bit like saying having diabetes helps you lose weight.
Fredxx
2018-01-12 19:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/01/2018 16:40, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>
>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>
>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>
>>
>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>
>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>
>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Harris
>
> A bit like saying having diabetes helps you lose weight.

Are you considering the evolutionary advantage of type 2, where there is
a choice of losing out to a chase from a sabre toothed tiger, or
managing to get away?

These days diabetes tends to go with obesity.
pensive hamster
2018-01-12 22:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>
> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>
> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>
>
> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>
> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>
> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....

Other experts are available. Here is a more pessimistic view:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-resilience-things-appear-to-be-turning-sour-for-the-uk-economy/
January 8th, 2018
After a period of resilience, things appear to be turning sour for
the UK economy

Eighteen months on from the referendum, it is still far from clear
what effect the Leave decision has had and, more importantly, will
have on the British economy. Although the worst excesses of
‘project fear’ have justifiably been debunked, writes Iain Begg (LSE),
recent indicators suggest the UK economy has been less resilient
than it first appeared.

In the second semester of 2016, UK growth seemed to shrug off
the political shock of Brexit, achieving exactly the rate forecast by
the likes of the IMF or the Bank of England three months prior to
the referendum. This left the Treasury, which had projected eighteen
months of stagnation starting immediately after a leave decision,
with egg on its face.

Less than a year on, however, the UK shifted from the fastest to the
slowest growing of the large industrial countries of the G7, with even
Italy performing better. Starting from the first quarter of 2017, the
growth rate fell from an annual rate of 2% (a quarterly average of
0.5%) to quarterly rates of just over 0.3%. This is not dramatic, but
against a backdrop of rising global demand and accelerating
recovery in the Eurozone – by far the UK’s biggest trading partner
– is more worrying than the raw figures convey because the UK
should have been benefiting more. We are now vying with Japan for
the title of slowest growing major economy.

Although JK Galbraith’s tart view that ‘the purpose of economic
forecasters is to make astrologers look respectable’ should be
borne in mind, 2018 is not expected to be better. ...
James Harris
2018-01-12 23:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/01/2018 22:17, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>
>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>
>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven years after a
>> solid three months to November that beat all forecasts and put Britain
>> on track to start 2018 on a firm footing.
>>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>
>>
>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British exports are
>> being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound and global growth,
>> both of which are helping. On the currency, there's a case to be made
>> that the pound has long been overvalued due to governments favouring
>> financial markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>
>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took the fake
>> top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and that is allowing
>> more substantial value-add industries to begin to re-establish
>> themselves. There is a long way to go as production capacity takes time
>> to re-form. But it's a good start.
>>
>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>
> Other experts are available. Here is a more pessimistic view:
>
> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-resilience-things-appear-to-be-turning-sour-for-the-uk-economy/
> January 8th, 2018
> After a period of resilience, things appear to be turning sour for
> the UK economy
>
> Eighteen months on from the referendum, it is still far from clear
> what effect the Leave decision has had and, more importantly, will
> have on the British economy. Although the worst excesses of
> ‘project fear’ have justifiably been debunked, writes Iain Begg (LSE),
> recent indicators suggest the UK economy has been less resilient
> than it first appeared.
>
> In the second semester of 2016, UK growth seemed to shrug off
> the political shock of Brexit, achieving exactly the rate forecast by
> the likes of the IMF or the Bank of England three months prior to
> the referendum. This left the Treasury, which had projected eighteen
> months of stagnation starting immediately after a leave decision,
> with egg on its face.
>
> Less than a year on, however, the UK shifted from the fastest to the
> slowest growing of the large industrial countries of the G7, with even
> Italy performing better. Starting from the first quarter of 2017, the
> growth rate fell from an annual rate of 2% (a quarterly average of
> 0.5%) to quarterly rates of just over 0.3%. This is not dramatic, but
> against a backdrop of rising global demand and accelerating
> recovery in the Eurozone – by far the UK’s biggest trading partner
> – is more worrying than the raw figures convey because the UK
> should have been benefiting more. We are now vying with Japan for
> the title of slowest growing major economy.
>
> Although JK Galbraith’s tart view that ‘the purpose of economic
> forecasters is to make astrologers look respectable’ should be
> borne in mind, 2018 is not expected to be better. ...

I would suggest that that lot's largely meaningless because it is a mix
of projections (aka guesses, tarot cards, tea leaves), ranking (at these
sorts of scales this is not a competition to see who we beat or lose to
for some sort of accolade), and statements of the obvious.

For the latter I mean that our growth rate is lower than comparable
countries. But we are engaged in the incredibly difficult process of
leaving the EU. What do you expect? The exit process consists of periods
of (1) uncertainty and (2) adjustment. Both of those were always going
to put a dampener on the economy in the short to medium term.

The miracles are, IMO, that the exit process is having much less impact
on the economy than many expected (including me) and that there are many
examples of firms making investments here for the longer term. They are
looking through the exit disruption to the UK being a place they want to
be when the dust settles.

So I am not sure what all the fuss is about. AFAICS things are going
well ... very well, considering the major change we are engaged in!


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-17 18:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23:39 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 12/01/2018 22:17, pensive hamster wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>
>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>
>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>> footing.
>>>
>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-
drives-
>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>
>>>
>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound
>>> and global growth, both of which are helping. On the currency,
>>> there's a case to be made that the pound has long been
>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>
>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took
>>> the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and
>>> that is allowing more substantial value-add industries to
>>> begin to re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good
>>> start.
>>>
>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>
>> Other experts are available. Here is a more pessimistic view:
>>
>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
resil
>> ience-things-appear-to-be-turning-sour-for-the-uk-economy/
>> January 8th, 2018 After a period of resilience, things appear
>> to be turning sour for the UK economy
>>
>> Eighteen months on from the referendum, it is still far from
>> clear what effect the Leave decision has had and, more
>> importantly, will have on the British economy. Although the
>> worst excesses of ‘project fear’ have justifiably been
>> debunked, writes Iain Begg (LSE), recent indicators suggest the
>> UK economy has been less resilient than it first appeared.
>>
>> In the second semester of 2016, UK growth seemed to shrug off
>> the political shock of Brexit, achieving exactly the rate
>> forecast by the likes of the IMF or the Bank of England three
>> months prior to the referendum. This left the Treasury, which
>> had projected eighteen months of stagnation starting
>> immediately after a leave decision, with egg on its face.
>>
>> Less than a year on, however, the UK shifted from the fastest
>> to the slowest growing of the large industrial countries of the
>> G7, with even Italy performing better. Starting from the first
>> quarter of 2017, the growth rate fell from an annual rate of 2%
>> (a quarterly average of 0.5%) to quarterly rates of just over
>> 0.3%. This is not dramatic, but against a backdrop of rising
>> global demand and accelerating recovery in the Eurozone – by
>> far the UK’s biggest trading partner – is more worrying
>> than the raw figures convey because the UK should have been
>> benefiting more. We are now vying with Japan for the title of
>> slowest growing major economy.
>>
>> Although JK Galbraith’s tart view that ‘the purpose of
>> economic forecasters is to make astrologers look respectable’
>> should be borne in mind, 2018 is not expected to be better. ...
>
> I would suggest that that lot's largely meaningless because it
> is a mix of projections (aka guesses, tarot cards, tea leaves),
> ranking (at these sorts of scales this is not a competition to
> see who we beat or lose to for some sort of accolade), and
> statements of the obvious.

There you go, James, pretending those predictions are no better
than random. Your justification for such a conclusion is that
they lack sufficient precision each time. Mercy me.

> For the latter I mean that our growth rate is lower than
> comparable countries. But we are engaged in the incredibly
> difficult process of leaving the EU. What do you expect?

So now it's okay to wreck the UK economy on a foolish endeavour?
I'm sure Leave voters did not vote to get that.

> The exit process consists of periods of (1) uncertainty and (2)
> adjustment. Both of those were always going to put a dampener on
> the economy in the short to medium term.

Could the medium term, in the way you use it, be 25 to 30 years?
That will come as a bit of a shock to those Leavers who thought it
would all be over in 2 years.

> The miracles are, IMO, that the exit process is having much less
> impact on the economy than many expected (including me) and that
> there are many examples of firms making investments here for the
> longer term. They are looking through the exit disruption to the
> UK being a place they want to be when the dust settles.
>
> So I am not sure what all the fuss is about. AFAICS things are
> going well ... very well,
>
> considering the major change we are engaged in!

Things are only going well relative to the damage which could
occur from being on the crazy lunatic path we're on.

In all other senses, things are not going well at all.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-18 10:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/01/2018 18:36, pamela wrote:
> On 23:39 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2018 22:17, pensive hamster wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>
>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>
>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>> footing.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-
> drives-
>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low pound
>>>> and global growth, both of which are helping. On the currency,
>>>> there's a case to be made that the pound has long been
>>>> overvalued due to governments favouring financial markets, and
>>>> that has caused the UK's financial systems and headline wealth
>>>> figures look good at the expense of substance.
>>>>
>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall, took
>>>> the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit more), and
>>>> that is allowing more substantial value-add industries to
>>>> begin to re-establish themselves. There is a long way to go as
>>>> production capacity takes time to re-form. But it's a good
>>>> start.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>
>>> Other experts are available. Here is a more pessimistic view:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
> resil
>>> ience-things-appear-to-be-turning-sour-for-the-uk-economy/
>>> January 8th, 2018 After a period of resilience, things appear
>>> to be turning sour for the UK economy
>>>
>>> Eighteen months on from the referendum, it is still far from
>>> clear what effect the Leave decision has had and, more
>>> importantly, will have on the British economy. Although the
>>> worst excesses of ‘project fear’ have justifiably been
>>> debunked, writes Iain Begg (LSE), recent indicators suggest the
>>> UK economy has been less resilient than it first appeared.
>>>
>>> In the second semester of 2016, UK growth seemed to shrug off
>>> the political shock of Brexit, achieving exactly the rate
>>> forecast by the likes of the IMF or the Bank of England three
>>> months prior to the referendum. This left the Treasury, which
>>> had projected eighteen months of stagnation starting
>>> immediately after a leave decision, with egg on its face.
>>>
>>> Less than a year on, however, the UK shifted from the fastest
>>> to the slowest growing of the large industrial countries of the
>>> G7, with even Italy performing better. Starting from the first
>>> quarter of 2017, the growth rate fell from an annual rate of 2%
>>> (a quarterly average of 0.5%) to quarterly rates of just over
>>> 0.3%. This is not dramatic, but against a backdrop of rising
>>> global demand and accelerating recovery in the Eurozone – by
>>> far the UK’s biggest trading partner – is more worrying
>>> than the raw figures convey because the UK should have been
>>> benefiting more. We are now vying with Japan for the title of
>>> slowest growing major economy.
>>>
>>> Although JK Galbraith’s tart view that ‘the purpose of
>>> economic forecasters is to make astrologers look respectable’
>>> should be borne in mind, 2018 is not expected to be better. ...
>>
>> I would suggest that that lot's largely meaningless because it
>> is a mix of projections (aka guesses, tarot cards, tea leaves),
>> ranking (at these sorts of scales this is not a competition to
>> see who we beat or lose to for some sort of accolade), and
>> statements of the obvious.
>
> There you go, James, pretending those predictions are no better
> than random. Your justification for such a conclusion is that
> they lack sufficient precision each time. Mercy me.

You might be surprised. Here's what I think a credible economic forecast
would be like

http://pensites.com/politics/article-1153/Elements-of-a-credible-economic-forecast

And there is no reason why such should not be produced. But that's not
what happens. Ask yourself why.

>
>> For the latter I mean that our growth rate is lower than
>> comparable countries. But we are engaged in the incredibly
>> difficult process of leaving the EU. What do you expect?
>
> So now it's okay to wreck the UK economy on a foolish endeavour?
> I'm sure Leave voters did not vote to get that.

The economy is not being wrecked. Not at all. Thanks in part to the
lower pound the economy is getting stronger. And the UK is growing in
areas that have been in the doldrums for at least a decade.

In the meantime, even though we are going through a period of
adjustment, a lot of firms are making long-term investments here. They
don't think the economy is going to be wrecked. Just the opposite. They
think that post-Brexit Britain is the place to be. As long as we free
ourselves from EU restrictions we should go from strength to strength,
as have countries which are outside the EU and are thriving because they
are enterprising and are free from the EU's preference for politics over
trade. The EU model does not work for the benefit of economies in the
long run. It's best we change course ASAP.

>
>> The exit process consists of periods of (1) uncertainty and (2)
>> adjustment. Both of those were always going to put a dampener on
>> the economy in the short to medium term.
>
> Could the medium term, in the way you use it, be 25 to 30 years?
> That will come as a bit of a shock to those Leavers who thought it
> would all be over in 2 years.

No, not that long. Much less. Though I agree that some expectations were
too optimistic.

>
>> The miracles are, IMO, that the exit process is having much less
>> impact on the economy than many expected (including me) and that
>> there are many examples of firms making investments here for the
>> longer term. They are looking through the exit disruption to the
>> UK being a place they want to be when the dust settles.
>>
>> So I am not sure what all the fuss is about. AFAICS things are
>> going well ... very well,
>>
>> considering the major change we are engaged in!
>
> Things are only going well relative to the damage which could
> occur from being on the crazy lunatic path we're on.
>
> In all other senses, things are not going well at all.
>


--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-18 11:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10:24 18 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 17/01/2018 18:36, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:39 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2018 22:17, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 12 January 2018 13:36:18 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>>>>> This is fun, especially as it's from the Times:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheap pound drives best factory growth in seven years
>>>>>
>>>>> Factories are growing at the fastest pace in almost seven
>>>>> years after a solid three months to November that beat all
>>>>> forecasts and put Britain on track to start 2018 on a firm
>>>>> footing.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/cheap-pound-
>> drives-
>>>>> best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-2l0x8g9ps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To help them out a bit, it's not just the currency. British
>>>>> exports are being helped by the twin benefits of the low
>>>>> pound and global growth, both of which are helping. On the
>>>>> currency, there's a case to be made that the pound has long
>>>>> been overvalued due to governments favouring financial
>>>>> markets, and that has caused the UK's financial systems and
>>>>> headline wealth figures look good at the expense of
>>>>> substance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Brexit vote, rather than causing a catastrophic fall,
>>>>> took the fake top of the pound's value (and maybe a bit
>>>>> more), and that is allowing more substantial value-add
>>>>> industries to begin to re-establish themselves. There is a
>>>>> long way to go as production capacity takes time to re-form.
>>>>> But it's a good start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if only there were some way to keep the pound low....
>>>>
>>>> Other experts are available. Here is a more pessimistic
>>>> view:
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
>> resil
>>>> ience-things-appear-to-be-turning-sour-for-the-uk-economy/
>>>> January 8th, 2018 After a period of resilience, things appear
>>>> to be turning sour for the UK economy
>>>>
>>>> Eighteen months on from the referendum, it is still far from
>>>> clear what effect the Leave decision has had and, more
>>>> importantly, will have on the British economy. Although the
>>>> worst excesses of ‘project fear’ have
>>>> justifiably been debunked, writes Iain Begg (LSE), recent
>>>> indicators suggest the UK economy has been less resilient
>>>> than it first appeared.
>>>>
>>>> In the second semester of 2016, UK growth seemed to shrug off
>>>> the political shock of Brexit, achieving exactly the rate
>>>> forecast by the likes of the IMF or the Bank of England three
>>>> months prior to the referendum. This left the Treasury, which
>>>> had projected eighteen months of stagnation starting
>>>> immediately after a leave decision, with egg on its face.
>>>>
>>>> Less than a year on, however, the UK shifted from the fastest
>>>> to the slowest growing of the large industrial countries of
>>>> the G7, with even Italy performing better. Starting from the
>>>> first quarter of 2017, the growth rate fell from an annual
>>>> rate of 2% (a quarterly average of 0.5%) to quarterly rates
>>>> of just over 0.3%. This is not dramatic, but against a
>>>> backdrop of rising global demand and accelerating recovery in
>>>> the Eurozone – by far the UK’s biggest trading
>>>> partner – is more worrying than the raw figures convey
>>>> because the UK should have been benefiting more. We are now
>>>> vying with Japan for the title of slowest growing major
>>>> economy.
>>>>
>>>> Although JK Galbraith’s tart view that ‘the
>>>> purpose of economic forecasters is to make astrologers look
>>>> respectable’ should be borne in mind, 2018 is not
>>>> expected to be better. ...
>>>
>>> I would suggest that that lot's largely meaningless because it
>>> is a mix of projections (aka guesses, tarot cards, tea
>>> leaves), ranking (at these sorts of scales this is not a
>>> competition to see who we beat or lose to for some sort of
>>> accolade), and statements of the obvious.
>>
>> There you go, James, pretending those predictions are no better
>> than random. Your justification for such a conclusion is that
>> they lack sufficient precision each time. Mercy me.
>
> You might be surprised. Here's what I think a credible economic
> forecast would be like
>
> http://pensites.com/politics/article-1153/Elements-of-a-
> credible-economic-forecast
>
> And there is no reason why such should not be produced. But
> that's not what happens. Ask yourself why.
>
>>
>>> For the latter I mean that our growth rate is lower than
>>> comparable countries. But we are engaged in the incredibly
>>> difficult process of leaving the EU. What do you expect?
>>
>> So now it's okay to wreck the UK economy on a foolish
>> endeavour? I'm sure Leave voters did not vote to get that.
>
> The economy is not being wrecked. Not at all. Thanks in part to
> the lower pound the economy is getting stronger. And the UK is
> growing in areas that have been in the doldrums for at least a
> decade.
>
> In the meantime, even though we are going through a period of
> adjustment, a lot of firms are making long-term investments
> here. They don't think the economy is going to be wrecked. Just
> the opposite. They think that post-Brexit Britain is the place
> to be. As long as we free ourselves from EU restrictions we
> should go from strength to strength, as have countries which are
> outside the EU and are thriving because they are enterprising
> and are free from the EU's preference for politics over trade.
> The EU model does not work for the benefit of economies in the
> long run. It's best we change course ASAP.
>
>>
>>> The exit process consists of periods of (1) uncertainty and
>>> (2) adjustment. Both of those were always going to put a
>>> dampener on the economy in the short to medium term.
>>
>> Could the medium term, in the way you use it, be 25 to 30
>> years? That will come as a bit of a shock to those Leavers who
>> thought it would all be over in 2 years.
>
> No, not that long. Much less. Though I agree that some
> expectations were too optimistic.
>
>>
>>> The miracles are, IMO, that the exit process is having much
>>> less impact on the economy than many expected (including me)
>>> and that there are many examples of firms making investments
>>> here for the longer term. They are looking through the exit
>>> disruption to the UK being a place they want to be when the
>>> dust settles.
>>>
>>> So I am not sure what all the fuss is about. AFAICS things are
>>> going well ... very well,
>>>
>>> considering the major change we are engaged in!
>>
>> Things are only going well relative to the damage which could
>> occur from being on the crazy lunatic path we're on.
>>
>> In all other senses, things are not going well at all.

Your "period of adjustment" (which others might prefer to call a
"period of pain") has no expected end.

After decades, when it does eventually end there is no quantified
expectation of any putative benefits. In fact, after this period
of additional pain, the outcome is quite likely to be worse than
it was before the process started.

Since the referendum, the UK has rapidly become an economic
laggard compared to other countries and is heading to be a sick
man of Europe once more.

Stock market companies are not social enterprises. Companies
which exploit the poor purchasing power of the pound by racking up
profits for shareholders and bosses will not be doing the public
any favours if the average person can no longer afford to buy the
goods which they were once able to afford.

Worse still, foreign owned companies (the recent fall in the pound
had attracted many overseas investors to buy shares) will take the
profits abroad and that money will never re-enter our economy.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Loading...


Database (slave) 0.002204 s
44.2656 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
SELECT `lang` FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_url` = 'uk.legal' (4)
0.000117 s
0.000225 s
0.000158 s
0.000630 s
2.2344 kB
2.3672 kB
2.2715 kB
9.0859 kB
SELECT `code`, `name` FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (3)
0.000089 s
0.000116 s
0.000101 s
0.000302 s
2.4141 kB
2.4297 kB
2.4193 kB
7.2578 kB
SELECT * FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (1)
0.000147 s
0.000147 s
0.000147 s
0.000147 s
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
SELECT * FROM `thread` WHERE `hash` = 'v1Bco2Ao' (1)
0.000156 s
0.000156 s
0.000156 s
0.000156 s
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
SELECT * FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_id` = '28820' (1)
0.000157 s
0.000157 s
0.000157 s
0.000157 s
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
SELECT * FROM `temp_simthread` WHERE `hash` = 'v1Bco2Ao' (1)
0.000413 s
0.000413 s
0.000413 s
0.000413 s
2.6719 kB
2.6719 kB
2.6719 kB
2.6719 kB
SELECT text_res, img_res, manual FROM porndetect WHERE hash = 'v1Bco2Ao' AND page = 1 (1)
0.000399 s
0.000399 s
0.000399 s
0.000399 s
2.6641 kB
2.6641 kB
2.6641 kB
2.6641 kB
Kohana 0.005320 s
239.5313 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
find_file (410)
0.000001 s
0.000094 s
0.000013 s
0.005320 s
0.5234 kB
2.5703 kB
0.5842 kB
239.5313 kB
Requests 0.130023 s
3,304.1250 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
"v1Bco2Ao/cheap-pound-drives-best-factory-growth-in-seven-years-because-of-brexit" (1)
0.131289 s
0.131289 s
0.131289 s
0.131289 s
3,332.0469 kB
3,332.0469 kB
3,332.0469 kB
3,332.0469 kB
Thread controller 0.000501 s
28.3906 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Init (1)
0.000501 s
0.000501 s
0.000501 s
0.000501 s
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
Thread parsing 0.094033 s
2,501.9688 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Other (3)
0.000030 s
0.055168 s
0.020168 s
0.060505 s
0.3672 kB
1,243.2734 kB
567.9323 kB
1,703.7969 kB
PHP Post Parsing (1)
0.025722 s
0.025722 s
0.025722 s
0.025722 s
707.8281 kB
707.8281 kB
707.8281 kB
707.8281 kB
C++ Post Parsing (1)
0.005086 s
0.005086 s
0.005086 s
0.005086 s
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
Three (1)
0.002720 s
0.002720 s
0.002720 s
0.002720 s
87.9766 kB
87.9766 kB
87.9766 kB
87.9766 kB
Load & uncompress 0.003272 s
447.6016 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
load_thread (1)
0.003272 s
0.003272 s
0.003272 s
0.003272 s
447.6016 kB
447.6016 kB
447.6016 kB
447.6016 kB
Application Execution (836) 0.020088 s 0.421503 s 0.036870 s 0.137398 s
1,111.3516 kB 9,498.8750 kB 1,314.1793 kB 3,898.9219 kB