Support NeoGAF

[gabbo]

UK politics is so hot garbage right now I feel like they are trying to give the US a run for its money and actually winning.

The implications of what Cameron did are far greater than 4 years of Trump.

 

[BKK]

Vox is a well-known US media outlet. But why not look at the author of the Vox article? He is a professor at a place called the London School of Economics. Have you heard of the London School of Economics?

Anyway, the Vox article was not talking about housing, the Economist article was the one talking about it.

They mentioned reduced housing demand as well as reduced office demand.

Thanks, I thought I had heard of Vox before, it's just recently that they showed up via goole news. Do they have a bias? The only reason I ask is because they seemed pretty militant on this one issue.

As for the economist article, I can no longer find it (deleted?), but it seems to be about London (commercial) real estate. It's not really relevant to my dispute about house builders.

Of course I know of the LSE, don't patronise me, debate with me. Unlike most here, I'm happy to acknlowedge when I'm wrong.

 

[oti]

Cameron will have to invoke Art. 50 today. I don't see another way around it. This is getting worse way faster than anyone expected.

 

[pigeon]

What has actually change in any economy other than speculation and fear? This is panic plain and simple. I am not saying that panic can't bring world economies to their knees but let's call it what it is.

This is the equivalent of setting your house on fire and then asking why everybody's acting so weird when the fire alarm goes off. How much of the house is actually on fire? It's all just speculation about the future!

 

[sangreal]

Thanks, I thought I had heard of Vox before, it's just recently that they showed up via goole news. Do they have a bias? The only reason I ask is because they seemed pretty militant on this one issue.

As for the economist article, I can't find it, but it seems to be about London (commercial) real estate. It's not really relevant to my dispute about house builders.

Of course I know of the LSE, don't patronise me, debate with me. Unlike most here, I'm happy to acknlowedge when I'm wrong.

Vox is part of a liberal us media conglomerate (along with the verge, polygon etc). I don't know where that fits into British affairs

 

[numble]

Thanks, I thought I had heard of Vox before, it's just recently that they showed up via goole news. Do they have a bias? The only reason I ask is because they seemed pretty militant on this one issue.

As for the economist article, I can't find it, but it seems to be about London (commercial) real estate. It's not really relevant to my dispute about house builders.

Of course I know of the LSE, don't patronise me, debate with me. Unlike most here, I'm happy to acknlowedge when I'm wrong.

What article about housing are you talking about? You said:

How can they make an article on housing without mentioning immigration figures?

shinra-bansho was quoting an article in The Economist that brought up both the decline in building stocks (due to low demand in both residential and commercial real estate) and simultaneously brought up the Vox article to discuss other economic impacts regarding Brexit.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Cameron will have to invoke Art. 50 today. I don't see another way around it. This is getting worse way faster than anyone expected.

Haha, no.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Not to mention that the UK economy has already lost £200 billion, and the world economy has already lost $2 trillion.

Well this is actually what some economists and orgs think will happen to the economy: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024728/brexit-economy-economists-recession

And a quick search says right here the stock market lost $2 trillion: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/investing/brexit-consequences-2-trillion-lost/

There's a difference between markets and the distributional nature they reflect vs. the economy.

 

[Phoenix]

This is the equivalent of setting your house on fire and then asking why everybody's acting so weird when the fire alarm goes off. How much of the house is actually on fire? It's all just speculation about the future!

Maybe the house won't burn down. It might rain and the fire will go out. Let's just stay here and see what happens.

 

[Man God]

The implications of what Cameron did are far greater than 4 years of Trump.

I'm not entirely convinced of this.

Trump is an idiot who could cause the destruction of the entire human race if voted into office.

Cameron just gets a one line blurb in his obituary about being the man who allowed the UK to leave the European Union.

Granted it is the biggest one day peace time shock to the status quo in the UK in hundreds of years but Trump could actually end life as we know it.

 

[BKK]

Vox is part of a liberal us media conglomerate (along with the verge, polygon etc). I don't know where that fits into British affairs

OK, thanks, I meant more economically that politically, but I guess that there's not so much distinction in that when it comes to bias! Still, I could see how liberal media may be more inclined towards the EU. Well, now I just sound like a conspiracy theorist, and the vote is over, so I'll just drop this.

What article about housing are you talking about? You said:

shinra-bansho was quoting an article in The Economist that brought up both the decline in building stocks (due to low demand in both residential and commercial real estate) and simultaneously brought up the Vox article to discuss other economic impacts regarding Brexit.

I think that he edited his post, I can no longer find the link to the original article that I was replying to. So yeah, I think that we are debating different articles.

 

[numble]

OK, thanks, I meant more economically that politically, but I guess that there's not so much distinction in that when it comes to bias! Still, I could see how liberal media may be more inclined towards the EU. Well, now I just sound like a conspiracy theorist, and the vote is over, so I'll just drop this.



I think that he edited his post, I can no longer find the link to the original article that I was replying to. So yeah, I think that we are debating different articles.

I've been here the whole time. He never posted a link. He has always been talking about the Economist article on the front page of Economist.com that is quoting the Vox article.

 

[TheSadRanger]

Is it popular opinion that the vote to leave the EU was largely due to immigration concerns fueled by the refugee crisis? What was the motivation? I am quite certain when this referendum was put out there Cameron was quite sure the UK wouldn't exit the EU. So what is the consensus from experts? Any good articles?

I dunno, seems like it's overpopulation more than anything to me, mainly in England which has the worst of it and why they were a main proponent of Brexit. Which explains immigration being the hot topic.

In reality though it has been a mixture of immigration and natural growth numbers exceeding expectations. They are also having an increase in an aging population. I remember reading a BBC article about it last year http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33266792. Doesn't seem like politicians really wanted to talk about it and those numbers were from 2014. Some have also pointed to the government's "family friendly" policies such as free nurseries and daycare as a contributor.

To put it in a world in perspective while the U.K doesn't have the population density of Japan or the Philippines, it's slowly been getting up there. You have nearly 64 million people living in a country with half the land mass of Arizona. In Euro terms they have almost the same population as France and half the land mass they do. They have the largest population density p/km² out of any nation in Europe.

The big thing is that it didn't seem like England was prepared for such a large populace in a small area as countries like Japan. Specifically in it's housing sector.

However I don't see how leaving the EU will help alleviate anything. It won't help people who want to leave England and seek work and possibly live elsewhere in Europe. Obviously there's the economic implications.

Honestly though, in reality England will never get any less crowded and I think Brexiter's are naive in thinking that leaving the EU will help with that. If England is too overcrowded for some people than I recommend they try their best to move to the U.S, Canada, or Australia cause it's probably not going to get better any time soon.

 

[BKK]

I've been here the whole time. He never posted a link. He has always been talking about the Economist article on the front page of Economist.com that is quoting the Vox article.

Direct link please. Now I'm really confused, so it was a vox article afterall?

 

[numble]

Direct link please. Now I'm really confused, so it was a vox article afterall?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/06/markets-after-referendum

Which has the charts previously quoted (that happily have the "Economist.com" emblazoned on them and quotes the Vox article.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Dear Leave voter, when you see the Sterling fall so hard, do you feel patriotic?

It does help exports

 

[BKK]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/06/markets-after-referendum

Which has the charts previously quoted (that happily have the "Economist.com" emblazoned on them and quotes the Vox article.

Thanks, I actually found a different article on Vox with the same quote, but yeah, they seem pretty militant on this.

Really?

An expert sums up the economic consensus about Brexit. It’s bad.

The economic consequences of leaving the European Union were naturally a central focus of the referendum campaign. Those consequences will be substantial, and negative.

That conclusion does not represent only my views, or those of scholars at the research center I’m affiliated with, the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. They reflect the work of almost all those who have looked seriously at this issue. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a degree of unanimity among economists on a major policy issue.

The precise effect, in terms of a numerical percentage, is of course uncertain. But it is almost certainly true that we will be financially worse off outside the EU than in it.

Analysis by the Centre for Economic Performance and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that if we leave the EU, the economy will be between 1 and 3 percent smaller by 2020, and between 2 and 8 percent smaller by 2030, than if we stay in. A 1 percent drop in GDP is a fall of £19 billion, equivalent to £720 for each household currently in the UK.

The reasons to expect lower national income when the UK leaves the EU are well-established: prolonged uncertainty, reduced access to the single market, and reduced investment from overseas. Each of these would be highly likely, and the overwhelming weight of evidence is that each would be damaging for the living standards of UK households. As a result of the decision to leave, we should expect to see:

Lower real wages
A lower value of the pound — and hence higher prices for goods and services
Higher borrowing, lower public spending, or higher taxes
In the short run, higher unemployment

Let’s take some of the biggest economic claims made by each side in the recent campaign, one by one:
There will be £10 billion more to spend on public services and tax cuts

Almost certainly untrue. While we would get to keep our current net £8 billion contribution to the EU budget, overall the public finances would almost certainly be weakened by leaving the EU as a result of a negative impact on the economy. Hence in the long run, taxes would have to rise, spending would have to fall, and/or public borrowing would have to rise.
Households would be £4,300 a year worse off by 2030

Uncertain. The effect might be bigger or smaller and will fall unevenly across households. And they would not be worse off than they are now. But households would in all likelihood be, on average, significantly worse off if we left the EU than if we stayed.
The UK will be able to trade with other EU nations on equally good terms to those we currently have

Almost certainly untrue. Membership of the single market on something like current terms might be available if we continue to make budget contributions and accept free movement of labor. It would not be available otherwise — and the "Leave" camp explicitly wants to avoid those obligations. Trade with EU countries will continue, but course it would become more difficult and costly, there would be less of it, and we would be worse off as a result.
There would be immediate big tax increases

Unlikely. The public finances, even accounting for the return of the net contribution to the EU, would be badly affected, as the economy would likely be smaller. That would require tax rises or spending cuts at some point. But the consensus judgment of economists is that the government would allow borrowing to rise in the short term rather than implement further tax raises or spending cuts immediately.

In other bad news: Banks will be particularly hard hit by Brexit, as they will lose their "passporting" rights to conduct business anywhere in the EU. Many American banks set up in London as a platform for trading across the continent. Frankfurt will be keen to grab a slice of this action.

Clearly non-economic arguments mattered in the Brexit debate. Leaving the EU will allow us more freedoms over some aspects of sovereignty, such as lawmaking, as well as possibly greater control over immigration. But the economic effects cannot be denied, although some voters appear to have been in denial.

In the end, voters rejected the economic consensus. The Leave campaign’s unremitting focus on reducing immigration at all costs seems to have won them over, despite the lack of any real evidence of the economic harm of EU migrants. Hard hearts have triumphed over cool heads. There is perhaps a salutary a lesson here for Americans in the runup to the November presidential election.

So someone highly negative. Fair enough, but there are always winners and losers. Maybe the next Vox article will show us the winners;

This sounds like a nice non-biased article;

Britain faces Project Reality

FRIDAY was the day when international markets absorbed the shock of the British vote to leave the European Union; a vote that few investors had anticipated. But today, market focus shifted back to the places where the vote is likely to have the biggest impact; on Britain and its European neighbours.

The biggest impact was on the pound, which continued Friday's big decline, especially against the US dollar, falling by another five cents to less than $1.32, its lowest level since the mid-1980s. The weaker pound reflects the expectation that Britain will be a less attractive destination for foreign investment; with a 7% current account deficit in the last quarter of 2015, Britain needs to attract foreign capital. A weak pound helps a bit by making British assets cheaper and thus more attractive.

But it may not help a lot. First, there is the J-curve effect; imports become instantly more expensive and this widens the deficit. It takes time to crank up exports. And Britain's manufacturing sector is quite small; the last big decline in the pound in 2008-09 did not eliminate the current account deficit. What a lower pound does mean is higher inflation (wait for the first "Brexit tax" in the form of higher petrol prices) and thus a squeeze in living standards.

Turning to equities, statements by Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England and George Osborne, the finance minister (for the moment) about the stability of the financial system fell on deaf ears. Shares in two of Britain's biggest banks, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, were briefly suspended today when their prices fell sharply after the opening. Investors seem concerned that a weaker British economy will mean both more debts and reduced demand for mortgages. The same factor explains why housebuilders like Persimmon, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey have all seen their shares take a battering. The domestically-focused FTSE 250 index was down 7% in late afternoon trading, or around 14% from Thursday's close.

There is not the same kind of stress in the FTSE 100 index which is above the lows recorded earlier in the month (a little below 6,000). But many FTSE 100 companies are multinationals whose fortunes bear little relation to the British economy, or whose overseas earnings will be boosted (in sterling terms) by recent foreign exchange market movements.

Most remarkably of all, 10-year gilt yields have dropped below 1% for the first time in history. Some may see this as a vote of confidence in the British economy but, talking to investors, that's not the real driver. Investors pile into government bonds when they are worried about the economic outlook, and when they expect short-term interest rates to fall; Royal Bank of Canada is expecting interest rates to be cut in two stages to 0.1% by August and another £50 billion worth of quantitative easing.

Some argue that there is little to worry about here. Lower gilt yields mean reduced borrowing costs for the government; the pound was almost as low earlier in the year.

And they are certainly right; it's not the moves in the markets, by themselves, that is important but what they signify for the economic outlook.

Here is John Van Reenen of the LSE, writing for Vox

The reasons to expect lower national income when the UK leaves the EU are well-established: prolonged uncertainty, reduced access to the single market, and reduced investment from overseas. Each of these would be highly likely, and the overwhelming weight of evidence is that each would be damaging for the living standards of UK households. As a result of the decision to leave, we should expect to see:

Lower real wages; a lower value of the pound — and hence higher prices for goods and services; higher borrowing, lower public spending, or higher taxes; in the short run, higher unemployment

Some will dismiss all this as "project fear" but the vote is done and dusted; there is no need to persuade voters any more. This is "project reality". So when Natixis, the French fund management group, forecasts a British recession in the fourth quarter of this year and the first of 2017, that is the view that is going to guide its investment decisions. The same goes for Julius Baer, the Swiss bank, which cuts its 2017 growth forecast from 1.7% to 0.7%. These forecasts may turn out to be wrong, of course, but they have their own momentum; companies will hesitate before committing to build new factories in Britain on the back of such predictions.

Evidence of the impact on business investment is inevitably anecdotal, after just three days. But here is Erik Nielsen of Unicredit

Meanwhile, recession is looming as investments are put on hold, leading to a widening of the already sizable budget deficit. My neighbour here in Chiswick, who runs a small IT company catering predominantly to the financial and legal industries, told me this morning that virtually his entire order book was cancelled on Friday by clients who are putting their projects on hold. For every one of these “micro disasters”, there needs to be an SME in north England who expands his book because of the supposedly good news of Brexit. I’ll venture a guess: It won’t happen!

The sheer political chaos in Britain means that there is even more reason to put investment plans on hold; Britain looks rudderless.

Analysts are also working out how the vote will affect specific sectors of the British economy. The real estate team of Jefferies, for example, has forecast that London office rents will fall 18% and some 10m square feet of demand for office space moves to Paris or Frankfurt (that is because banks will need to shift business to the EU to operate in euro transaction clearing or to have passporting rights in the EU). Russell Investments has said that pension funding levels will fall by 10% (lower asset prices and higher liabilities, as the bond yield falls); companies will need to divert cash from investment into their pension schemes.

The best hope for markets and investment is that Britain opts for a Norway-style deal; membership of the European Economic Area. This means continued membership of the single market but at the "cost" (in terms of political risk) of free movement of labour and a budget contribution. Commentators are suggesting variants of this deal; perhaps with an "emergency brake" on free movement. It is not clear how politically feasible this is, on either side of the negotiations. The EU has fudged solutions before. But if we start heading that way, markets may rally.

Sorry, this is just ridiculously biased. Only negatives, no positives. That's not how economics works.

Housing market? Seriously I'm happy to debate actual economics, but this is just a joke.

 

[Steel]

It does help exports

The UK imports more than it exports.

 

[numble]

Thanks, I actually found a different article on Vox with the same quote, but yeah, they seem pretty militant on this.

Really?

An expert sums up the economic consensus about Brexit. It’s bad.



So someone higly negative. Fair enough, but there are always winners and losers. Maybe the next Vox article will show us the winners;

This sounds like a nice non-biased article;

Britain faces Project Reality



Sorry, this is just ridiculously biased. Only negatives, no positives. That's not how economics works.

Economics is faced on the big picture and a net outcome. It is politics that is where certain constituencies benefiting at the expense of the whole can be discussed.

Please explain how you view economics works and why you think there is a net positive.

 

[FStop7]

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2016/06/27/0200000000AEN20160627010000320.html

https://next.ft.com/content/efce4672-cbe9-342c-b1b8-85b5b419cb48

South Korea's feeling the Brexit shock.

 

[BKK]

The UK imports more than it exports.

When the pound was strong! Weak pound will have a positive affect on the trade balance.

 

[Steel]

When the pound was strong! Weak pound will have a positive affect on the trade balance.

I... Can't tell if you're serious.

 

[BKK]

Economics is faced on the big picture and a net outcome. It is politics that is where certain constituencies benefiting at the expense of the whole can be discussed.

Please explain how you view economics works and why you think there is a net positive.

I've never argued that there is a net positive, just that economic articles should inform their readers of both the positives and negatives. Those articles are clearly biased, and could mislead investors into making the wrong investments. I'm quite surprised as I thought the guy who original quoted them worked in banking, or finance at least.

 

[BKK]

I... Can't tell if you're serious.

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

 

[numble]

I've never argued that there is a net positive, just that economic articles should inform their readers of both the positives and negatives. Those articles are clearly biased, and could mislead investors into making the wrong investments. I'm quite surprised as I thought the guy who original quoted them worked in banking, or finance at least.

This is not gaming side with "bias"--how is expert economic analysis "biased'? They point out that the markets can rally if the UK can retain access to the common market, for instance, which is a positive.

 

[Izuna]

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

What exports?

 

[Steel]

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

In order to have a sizable increase in exports, there has to be something to export.

 

[Tommy DJ]

However the United Kingdom is strongly reliant on outside resources for essentials, like fuel and food. You can't suddenly grow these things on trees.

You also can't manufacturer and export things out of nothing. You're still importing raw materials to manufacture goods of higher value.

A weaker Sterling means all of these things cost more.

 

[jellies_two]

What exports?

I dunno.
these?

Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

 

[BKK]

This is not gaming side with "bias"--how is expert economic analysis "biased'? They point out that the markets can rally if the UK can retain access to the common market, for instance, which is a positive.

OK, to be fair, the guy who originally posted the quote made it out to be an article on the UK housing market. In hindsight it wasn't that, so maybe I'm being over critical of the author.

 

[Izuna]

I dunno.
these?

Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

How many of those involve automation?

Edit: Instead of playing a game, I think you see my point.

 

[Officerrob]

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

Exactly what exports will be increasing?

 

[BKK]

In order to have a sizable increase in exports, there has to be something to export.

Yes, the UK has an export market (quite significant in motor vehicles, amongst other things). With a weaker pound that export market will increase (and imports will decrease). The trade balance will improve.

 

[oti]

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

Yes. But the export surplus has to equalize the higher cost of everything else.

 

[BKK]

Exactly what exports will be increasing?

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

[Steel]

I dunno.
these?

Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

That's $328.9 billion.

The UK imports $664 billion.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/#Imports

What the UK imports it isn't gonna stop needing since it's an island. Furthermore, the cost of importing will significantly increase after leaving the EU. On top of that, the pound cratering isn't going to suddenly double exports to match, not exceed, imports. Since the trade balance will not change from imports to exports, the pound's weakness only hurts the UK's economy.

 

[BKK]

Yes. But the export surplus has to equalize the higher cost of everything else.

Labour will be cheaper. If the costs of goods that you import are being exported, then it should cancel itself out.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Labour will be cheaper. If the costs of goods that you import are being exported, then it should cancel itself out.

Do you have a degree or any kind of experience in macroeconomics?

 

[numble]

Labour will be cheaper. If the costs of goods that you import are being exported, then it should cancel itself out.

Labor will not be cheaper if inflation requires higher wages, otherwise labor is cheaper while cost of living goes up, which is not a good recipe. Since Britain imports more than it exports (even when the pound is weak!), there will likely be inflation. I would say even "unbiased" experts have predicted inflation.

 

[Azih]

Sorry, this is just ridiculously biased. Only negatives, no positives. That's not how economics works.

Wha? There are plenty of historical examples of overwhelmingly negative consequences of political and economic decisions. You seem to be suggesting that every possible political decision is neutral economically speaking as there will always be 'negatives' and 'positives'. Sorry man, that's not how reality works.

Edit: And the problem with exports has been tackled in the article by talking about the J curve.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Labour will be cheaper. If the costs of goods that you import are being exported, then it should cancel itself out.

How much more will it cost to access the single market once you're outside? You should probably factor that into your estimation.

 

[Tommy DJ]

I still don't see how the trade balance is going to improve like your stating unless the United Kingdom starts telling people to go back to the coal mines and makes food out of people.

It's the exact same sort of problem Japan had when thy started importing fossil fuels to back their shut down nuclear power plants. A weak currency was good for Japanese multinationals but god awful for the trade balance.

 

[Izuna]

How much more will it cost to access the single market once you're outside? You should probably factor that into your estimation.

And it could be taxed, so it may not be that much cheaper for the importers.

 

[jellies_two]

Since the trade balance will not change from imports to exports, the pound's weakness only hurts the UK's economy.

Exchange rates tend to move to cushion blows. That is, when an economy gets strong, the currency rises, makes exports less competitive, reduces tourism, and so on.
When the currency falls due to a shock, it helps exporters, decreases the demand for luxury goods, etc.
China for example enjoys keeping its currency cheap while also boosting its economy and Switzerland struggled against a very high swiss franc and has even set negative interest rates to try to stop people buying them.

So to say the pound's weakness ONLY hurts the UK economy would be telling just part of the story.
Nobody wants unexpected plunges or rises in exchange rate so about the only thing you can say is 100% unwelcome is the speed of the move.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

This year. This fucking year. What the hell is going on. This country is going down the fucking drain. My wife left me a few hours ago. I am totally fucked. Please will someone wake me up and tell me this is just a bad nightmare.

I'm sorry to hear this.

 

[Azih]

What will the UK magically start exporting? It will never be an industrial powerhouse again and financial services crave stability.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I didn't make it out as an article on the housing market. It's just an element of the domestic market impacted, masked when one only looks at the FTSE 100, as you initially did.

Everything is from the same Economist article. It quotes the Vox article written by the LSE academic.

The Economist article isn't "militant". Good grief. And you claim it mentioned no positive impact, except it does on potential benefits of a weaker pound. But it elaborates accurately on why that isn't some great saviour.

You want people to write about an economic upside, they're not going to as they have no basis to proclaim such.

It's like that strange notion that for "balance" a news report should have both a "scientist" for and against the idea of humans causing global warming, indicating divided opinion.

 

[ExVicis]

Weak currency: exports increase, Strong currency, imports increase. I can't tell if you're serious.

...oh I see, it's exporting more paper since the currency is worth less than a notebook page.

 

[BKK]

Do you have a degree or any kind of experience in macroeconomics?

No, if you disagree with something I say, educate me.

Labor will not be cheaper if inflation requires higher wages, otherwise labor is cheaper while cost of living goes up, which is not a good recipe. Since Britain imports more than it exports (even when the pound is weak!), there will likely be inflation. I would say even "unbiased" experts have predicted inflation.

Inflation is next to zero, well below the BoE's target. There is plenty of room for inflation. The pound has just devalued by over 10%, do you really think that inflation will exceed that? If you do, then I agree with you. Personally, I don't think that will happen.

Wha? There are plenty of historical examples of overwhelmingly negative consequences of political and economic decisions. You seem to be suggesting that every possible political decision is neutral economically speaking as there will always be 'negatives' and 'positives'. Sorry man, that's not how reality works.

Edit: And the problem with exports has been tackled in the article by talking about the J curve.

To be fair, I'm not saying that it will be neutral for the UK, just that there will be positives and negatives. I'm not saying that those will equal out (for just the UK at least).

How much more will it cost to access the single market once you're outside? You should probably factor that into your estimation.

There will be a cost (as there is now), but it will be far less than the recent devaluation in the Pound. Regardless of currency markets, I think that this is the smallest issue of all. How much would WTO tariffs - EU membership fees cost? It's something that you'd rather forgo, but certainly not a deal breaker. I would assume that the final settlement would be somewhat better than WTO tariffs.

 

[Izuna]

What will the UK magically start exporting? It will never be an industrial powerhouse again and financial services crave stability.

We could export some fascism to the Trump campaign. He has billions, I'm sure he will buy us a few golf courts in return.