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
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by Yellow
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
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Yellow
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
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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?
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Fredxx
2018-01-15 21:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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.
"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.
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
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".
http://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
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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?
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
By the way, leaving the EU has been set for a very specific date.
The years after Britian exits the EU extend to infinity.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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?
Post by pamela
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...?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
By the way, leaving the EU has been set for a very specific
date. The years after Britian exits the EU extend to infinity.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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".
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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?
Post by pamela
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...?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1179/No-wage-growth-for-a-
de
Post by James Harris
cade
Post by pamela
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:36:11 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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.
"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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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.
"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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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.
"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
"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."
"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!
Post by pamela
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
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
"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
"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."
"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!
Post by pamela
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.
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2018-01-16 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2018-01-16 10:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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.
Post by kat
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
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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.
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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.
Post by pamela
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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".
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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?
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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!
Post by pamela
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!
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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!
Post by pamela
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!
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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!
Post by pamela
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!
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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!
Post by pamela
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!
Post by pamela
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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!
Post by pamela
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by kat
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
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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.
Post by kat
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
Post by pamela
^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-16 15:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:18:02 +0000, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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
Post by pamela
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
Post by pamela
^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-16 22:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2018-01-17 00:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Ophelia
2018-01-17 10:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:42:57 +0000, kat
Post by kat
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:49:06 +0000, kat
Post by kat
Post by pamela
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
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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
Post by James Harris
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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?
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pamela
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
Post by pamela
^..^<
James Harris
2018-01-18 10:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
"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".
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
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
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
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
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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....
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
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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-
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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....
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
resil
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
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.
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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-
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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....
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
resil
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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-
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
Post by James Harris
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
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/08/after-a-period-of-
resil
Post by James Harris
Post by pensive hamster
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
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...