And back to 19th title..
What concerns has the EU failed to recognise?
Guys, I haven't deleted anyone on this post and I never have. But, please, let's keep it sensible and mature.
JimmyTheRed
Trying my best Jimmy <ok.
redinthehead,
that a single interest rate across such disparate economies will not work, it's responsible, along with the banking crisis, for the problems being experienced by the southern members.
that individual countries can still accrue sovereign debt, but their central banks have no way of managing this, as they are prohibited from printing currency, or adjusting interest rates.
that the eurozone is supposed to be all in together, yet they continue with each countries own bonds, refusing to create an overarching eurobond.
that the eu/ec is fundamentally undemocratic.
that the eu will ride roughshod over the requirements of a member state in trouble simply for short term financial stability despite the fact that it just exacerbates the problem over the long term.
that the eu will enforce the privatisation of a member countries public services in the name of 'austerity' so that the corporations of the richer members can enrich themselves at the cost of the struggling member.
that the eu/ec has been singularly unable to resolve a single problem it has encountered, instead it's procrastinated, obfuscated or just plain denied it exists. the best it's ever managed is to paper over any cracks with something plainly not fit for purpose, so the problem can be kicked down the road in the hope it will solve itself by the time they get there again.
how's that for starters? there's plenty more if you want them.
This thread was quite interesting, but this'mock/shock' debate has become tedious.
Back to the issue at hand. The leave campaign don't really have an exit strategy as such regards the economy because it's impossible to formulate one. Anyone who says they know we will be better off if we leave is a liar. There is more economic data available to surmise in the short term at least where we might be economically if we remain.
I quite like the idea of the country (economically speaking), being proactive by planning for the future ,moving stealthily to strike economic deals in the globalised world. However, I fear that in reality, with our petty party politics undermining any forward planning, this is a pipe dream. To leave is an economic gamble in my eyes, which is not necessarily bad, but the trouble is that I don't trust the politicians of today to plan for the future. Our political system makes it nigh impossible.
This lack of exit strategy can be applied to other area's of the debate though and disappointingly., I have discovered little on what actually the brexiteers plans are.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
I think this little argument going on is going away from the actual debate.
I'm still yet to hear an argument which tells me we will be better off outside the EU. That's what it comes down to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
Security: who has the best intelligence service in Europe? There's no way Europe will stop cooperating with us. Whatever people say, it will be easier to control access into our country. Yes, we need immigration, but not on the scale we currently have. If we need you, then you get in, simple.
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
yep,
and we're still to hear any convincing argument that we're better off in the eu.
lot's of scaremongering, and inaccurate figures from both sides. but the simple fact is we're not going to see anything conclusive either way, because it simply doesn't exist, it's all predictions/projections and opinions. but they're all based on so many variables, some of them completely unknown, that it's simply impossible to guarantee any outcome.
it all comes down to trust, in our own governments, and in the eu governance.
i personally, have no trust or believe in the competence of either, and no trust that the euro, eu, ec will work in the long term.
therefore i'm voting out, at least that removes one layer of distrust/incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the same as the vote for Scottish independence. Nobody really knows what will happen on the back seat of a leave or remain vote, unless your political or Facebook paranoid leanings push your views.
The single rate is to do with the single currency, the member states that subscribed to the Euro knew this would come to pass, and therefore should have been prepared for it.
I don't agree that the southern states have been badly or unfairly treated, there was a severe element of poor governance (which could affect France if they cave to strikers demands) that led to the crises they were in.
Austerity measures put upon those states in trouble was to ensure they will come out of the situation healthier and leaner.. the short term position was to inject money into those economies, the longer term strategy is to get the books balanced for that longer term.
If that means public sector spending stops in favour of private sector spending - then this is fair enough
Money spent privately goes a lot further than money spent by the public sector, this is indisputable, in fact it could be 3 times more efficient in terms of spend / benefit.
Where resources are due to be limited, sharply limited, the private sector is the best way to ensure things will continue to run.
Sovereign debt spend per annum should be capped as a % of GDP, this is the only way forward in that regard.
No sovereign country will be able to sign up to not being able to look after its people, so a cap is far more sensible than a flat out "no sovereign debt"
Give an example of a single problem the EU hasn't been able to sort out that's been in their remit.
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
-------
Oh come on Term, you can't use your gut feeling for a major decision on the future of the country when you have reports and forecasts to rely on.
Even if you stick a tenner on a horse you will study the form slightly before trusting your gut instinct.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
-------
Oh come on Term, you can't use your gut feeling for a major decision on the future of the country when you have reports and forecasts to rely on.
Even if you stick a tenner on a horse you will study the form slightly before trusting your gut instinct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within reason, it's what we've all got to rely on when it comes to the crunch. You keep going on about the economic argument, and I've already said I don't trust what they're saying. It's impossible to know how it'll pan out with certainty, and the way we're being told that without doubt it'll be an economic disaster if we leave just stinks to me, and is setting all kinds of alarm bells, along with all the other doomsday rhetoric we're hearing. They're not certain what'll happen in six months, and frequently get it wrong. Where were these experts when the banking collapse happened? An event that should have been obvious to those with the expert knowledge.
Obviously, there's going to be a period of adjustment if we leave, and likely some short term pain. But even if we have a twelve month recession, what's that in the grand scheme of things? We've had far longer recessions whilst in Europe.
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right.....
Obviously, there's going to be a period of adjustment if we leave, and likely some short term pain. But even if we have a twelve month recession, what's that in the grand scheme of things? We've had far longer recessions whilst in Europe
--------
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
i would certainly take the advice of seasoned economists over your gut instinct.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value.
Either which way, people will be poorer, less holidays abroad, less money to spend on imports, basically hitting purchasing power.
This will then affect industry, and public services. We know the NHS already buys many of its supplies from Europe (from pharmaceutical to paper towels) it will then need more money to run at the same level. As will other industries with supply lines on a European if not Global level.
Spending more money on supplies means there is less available for investment, and this is what will start to put the brakes on the economy.
Lower levels of investment and less money to spend will start to fall into a recession.
how will we get out of it?
That's the question the leave camp have to answer.
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right
-----------
Bookies get it right though, they're the experts.
i would certainly take the advice of seasoned economists over your gut instinct
------------------
Good for you, but I've not suggested anywhere that I'm right and that you should change your mind because of what I'm saying.
Again, you keep hanging your hat on what these 'seasoned economists' are saying, and can't seem to acknowledge how horribly wrong they can, and have gotten it in the past. I'm happy to acknowledge that they may well be right, but stop pretending that it's a given that they are.
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right
-----------
Bookies get it right though, they're the experts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest factor on why bookies get it right, is simply that the odds are in their favour. If you pick a horse in an 18 runner race, you have one horse running for you, the bookie has 17.
There is such a variety of results, at such a wide range of odds, that it's extremely hard for bookies not to make money.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
everything you come out with would have both positive and negative effects on parts of our economy. the economists don't know what the net result will be. the politicians don't know what the net result will be, i don't know what the net result will be, you don't know what the net result will be.
stop claiming it'll be this, or that'll happen. you don't know, you can't know. that's the whole bloody point. no-one can say right now, that in or out is definitely the best decision 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now... ad infinitum.
anyone that claims otherwise is lying.
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
---------
So an overnight drop in the £ will lead to an overnight rush for export orders?
we'd need to have the products to sell first.
The immediate effect of the devaluation of the pound will be along current buying trends and supply lines.
Also, with component parts from overseas being more expensive, it will erode a lot of the benefit to export manufacturers of the devalued £.
What pray tell does the NHS export? It will have to cope with increased spending on needed supplies just to 'stand still'.
Overseas investment in the UK... I thought the vote leave side were not ok with increased foreign interference in the UK.
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Cable knew and warned about it well in advance of it happening.
"it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any."
Don't be so naive.
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
comment by Keep It Greasy Fick mich, du (U1396)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Cable knew and warned about it well in advance of it happening.
as did warren buffett, he warned them repeatedly. and how much affect did that have on the world's economists, and politicians. none. all they were concerned with was the short term boost to the financial industry, and the corresponding increase in tax receipts from the banks.
comment by Keep It Greasy Fick mich, du (U1396)
posted 2 minutes ago
"it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any."
Don't be so naive.
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are talking about us going into recession is a unique event. Being in Europe hasn't stopped it happening before, has it?
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 27 minutes ago
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
everything you come out with would have both positive and negative effects on parts of our economy. the economists don't know what the net result will be. the politicians don't know what the net result will be, i don't know what the net result will be, you don't know what the net result will be.
stop claiming it'll be this, or that'll happen. you don't know, you can't know. that's the whole bloody point. no-one can say right now, that in or out is definitely the best decision 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now... ad infinitum.
anyone that claims otherwise is lying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the side that can convince the morning st that their views are what will happen. If Salmon was more forceful the Scots would have independence on his production of increased investment and bankrolling it all via oil cash.......
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
printed july 10th, 1981.
New york, - the economic decline that began in january 1980 bottomed out just seven months later, making it the shortest recession on record, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research
the non-profit research group's business cycle dating committee, composed of seven academic economists, is considered the most authoritative voice on the existence, timing and duration of recessions.
so the empirical evidence is YOU ARE WRONG.
and this was printed on may 15 2008:
If a growing number of economists are to believed, the much-foretold recession of 2008 hasn't happened and probably won't happen. One economist, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, says, "The numbers we've seen recently haven't been as bad as we were led to believe just a few months ago."
The part in this article that jumps out me was this paragraph: "In February, Global Insight joined Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS and Merrill Lynch in declaring the U.S. to be in recession. Now, Global Insight's Brian Bethune says that while the firm is still forecasting a recession, "it's conceivable we could avoid it."
Huh? First we were in a recession, then maybe we might be headed for a recession, then maybe we won't ever see that recession
so much for the vaunted experience and knowledge of economists.
i would trust them to predict they were going to fart with more than 20% accuracy.
and you all claim to be studying the facts and providing evidence and listening to the experts, so far the only ones that seem to have actually posted any facts in this thread have been on the leave side.
Sign in if you want to comment
Unbelievable
Page 6 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 10/6/16
And back to 19th title..
What concerns has the EU failed to recognise?
posted on 10/6/16
Guys, I haven't deleted anyone on this post and I never have. But, please, let's keep it sensible and mature.
JimmyTheRed
posted on 10/6/16
Trying my best Jimmy <ok.
posted on 10/6/16
redinthehead,
that a single interest rate across such disparate economies will not work, it's responsible, along with the banking crisis, for the problems being experienced by the southern members.
that individual countries can still accrue sovereign debt, but their central banks have no way of managing this, as they are prohibited from printing currency, or adjusting interest rates.
that the eurozone is supposed to be all in together, yet they continue with each countries own bonds, refusing to create an overarching eurobond.
that the eu/ec is fundamentally undemocratic.
that the eu will ride roughshod over the requirements of a member state in trouble simply for short term financial stability despite the fact that it just exacerbates the problem over the long term.
that the eu will enforce the privatisation of a member countries public services in the name of 'austerity' so that the corporations of the richer members can enrich themselves at the cost of the struggling member.
that the eu/ec has been singularly unable to resolve a single problem it has encountered, instead it's procrastinated, obfuscated or just plain denied it exists. the best it's ever managed is to paper over any cracks with something plainly not fit for purpose, so the problem can be kicked down the road in the hope it will solve itself by the time they get there again.
how's that for starters? there's plenty more if you want them.
posted on 10/6/16
This thread was quite interesting, but this'mock/shock' debate has become tedious.
Back to the issue at hand. The leave campaign don't really have an exit strategy as such regards the economy because it's impossible to formulate one. Anyone who says they know we will be better off if we leave is a liar. There is more economic data available to surmise in the short term at least where we might be economically if we remain.
I quite like the idea of the country (economically speaking), being proactive by planning for the future ,moving stealthily to strike economic deals in the globalised world. However, I fear that in reality, with our petty party politics undermining any forward planning, this is a pipe dream. To leave is an economic gamble in my eyes, which is not necessarily bad, but the trouble is that I don't trust the politicians of today to plan for the future. Our political system makes it nigh impossible.
This lack of exit strategy can be applied to other area's of the debate though and disappointingly., I have discovered little on what actually the brexiteers plans are.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
I think this little argument going on is going away from the actual debate.
I'm still yet to hear an argument which tells me we will be better off outside the EU. That's what it comes down to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
Security: who has the best intelligence service in Europe? There's no way Europe will stop cooperating with us. Whatever people say, it will be easier to control access into our country. Yes, we need immigration, but not on the scale we currently have. If we need you, then you get in, simple.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
yep,
and we're still to hear any convincing argument that we're better off in the eu.
lot's of scaremongering, and inaccurate figures from both sides. but the simple fact is we're not going to see anything conclusive either way, because it simply doesn't exist, it's all predictions/projections and opinions. but they're all based on so many variables, some of them completely unknown, that it's simply impossible to guarantee any outcome.
it all comes down to trust, in our own governments, and in the eu governance.
i personally, have no trust or believe in the competence of either, and no trust that the euro, eu, ec will work in the long term.
therefore i'm voting out, at least that removes one layer of distrust/incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the same as the vote for Scottish independence. Nobody really knows what will happen on the back seat of a leave or remain vote, unless your political or Facebook paranoid leanings push your views.
posted on 10/6/16
The single rate is to do with the single currency, the member states that subscribed to the Euro knew this would come to pass, and therefore should have been prepared for it.
I don't agree that the southern states have been badly or unfairly treated, there was a severe element of poor governance (which could affect France if they cave to strikers demands) that led to the crises they were in.
Austerity measures put upon those states in trouble was to ensure they will come out of the situation healthier and leaner.. the short term position was to inject money into those economies, the longer term strategy is to get the books balanced for that longer term.
If that means public sector spending stops in favour of private sector spending - then this is fair enough
Money spent privately goes a lot further than money spent by the public sector, this is indisputable, in fact it could be 3 times more efficient in terms of spend / benefit.
Where resources are due to be limited, sharply limited, the private sector is the best way to ensure things will continue to run.
Sovereign debt spend per annum should be capped as a % of GDP, this is the only way forward in that regard.
No sovereign country will be able to sign up to not being able to look after its people, so a cap is far more sensible than a flat out "no sovereign debt"
Give an example of a single problem the EU hasn't been able to sort out that's been in their remit.
posted on 10/6/16
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
-------
Oh come on Term, you can't use your gut feeling for a major decision on the future of the country when you have reports and forecasts to rely on.
Even if you stick a tenner on a horse you will study the form slightly before trusting your gut instinct.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
I'll be honest toor, I'm mainly following my gut. I'm not taking notice of the economic argument from either side, because basically I don't believe them. I strongly believe that they don't know themselves and they're just telling us whatever suits their own agendas.
-------
Oh come on Term, you can't use your gut feeling for a major decision on the future of the country when you have reports and forecasts to rely on.
Even if you stick a tenner on a horse you will study the form slightly before trusting your gut instinct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Within reason, it's what we've all got to rely on when it comes to the crunch. You keep going on about the economic argument, and I've already said I don't trust what they're saying. It's impossible to know how it'll pan out with certainty, and the way we're being told that without doubt it'll be an economic disaster if we leave just stinks to me, and is setting all kinds of alarm bells, along with all the other doomsday rhetoric we're hearing. They're not certain what'll happen in six months, and frequently get it wrong. Where were these experts when the banking collapse happened? An event that should have been obvious to those with the expert knowledge.
Obviously, there's going to be a period of adjustment if we leave, and likely some short term pain. But even if we have a twelve month recession, what's that in the grand scheme of things? We've had far longer recessions whilst in Europe.
posted on 10/6/16
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right.....
posted on 10/6/16
Obviously, there's going to be a period of adjustment if we leave, and likely some short term pain. But even if we have a twelve month recession, what's that in the grand scheme of things? We've had far longer recessions whilst in Europe
--------
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
i would certainly take the advice of seasoned economists over your gut instinct.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value.
Either which way, people will be poorer, less holidays abroad, less money to spend on imports, basically hitting purchasing power.
This will then affect industry, and public services. We know the NHS already buys many of its supplies from Europe (from pharmaceutical to paper towels) it will then need more money to run at the same level. As will other industries with supply lines on a European if not Global level.
Spending more money on supplies means there is less available for investment, and this is what will start to put the brakes on the economy.
Lower levels of investment and less money to spend will start to fall into a recession.
how will we get out of it?
That's the question the leave camp have to answer.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right
-----------
Bookies get it right though, they're the experts.
posted on 10/6/16
i would certainly take the advice of seasoned economists over your gut instinct
------------------
Good for you, but I've not suggested anywhere that I'm right and that you should change your mind because of what I'm saying.
Again, you keep hanging your hat on what these 'seasoned economists' are saying, and can't seem to acknowledge how horribly wrong they can, and have gotten it in the past. I'm happy to acknowledge that they may well be right, but stop pretending that it's a given that they are.
posted on 10/6/16
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
As for your horse analogy, of course I study the form. Many times I've pored through every aspect of form, picked a horse that on paper is absolutely guarenteed to win, cannot lose. Then promptly watched it trail in, tailed off.
Many experts tell us all the time what horse will win, yet you'll not find one with a success rate of more than 40%, and they're the best.
They tell us what they think will happen, but in the end get it wrong more than they get it right
-----------
Bookies get it right though, they're the experts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest factor on why bookies get it right, is simply that the odds are in their favour. If you pick a horse in an 18 runner race, you have one horse running for you, the bookie has 17.
There is such a variety of results, at such a wide range of odds, that it's extremely hard for bookies not to make money.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
posted on 10/6/16
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
everything you come out with would have both positive and negative effects on parts of our economy. the economists don't know what the net result will be. the politicians don't know what the net result will be, i don't know what the net result will be, you don't know what the net result will be.
stop claiming it'll be this, or that'll happen. you don't know, you can't know. that's the whole bloody point. no-one can say right now, that in or out is definitely the best decision 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now... ad infinitum.
anyone that claims otherwise is lying.
posted on 10/6/16
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
---------
So an overnight drop in the £ will lead to an overnight rush for export orders?
we'd need to have the products to sell first.
The immediate effect of the devaluation of the pound will be along current buying trends and supply lines.
Also, with component parts from overseas being more expensive, it will erode a lot of the benefit to export manufacturers of the devalued £.
What pray tell does the NHS export? It will have to cope with increased spending on needed supplies just to 'stand still'.
Overseas investment in the UK... I thought the vote leave side were not ok with increased foreign interference in the UK.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Cable knew and warned about it well in advance of it happening.
posted on 10/6/16
"it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any."
Don't be so naive.
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Keep It Greasy Fick mich, du (U1396)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
They know what they're talking about and my experiences in industry are on the same lines as there's.
There just isn't any data to support the 'vote leave' sides economic proposals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they know that the banking collapse was going to happen? If so, were they as vocal with their warnings as they're being now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Cable knew and warned about it well in advance of it happening.
as did warren buffett, he warned them repeatedly. and how much affect did that have on the world's economists, and politicians. none. all they were concerned with was the short term boost to the financial industry, and the corresponding increase in tax receipts from the banks.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Keep It Greasy Fick mich, du (U1396)
posted 2 minutes ago
"it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any."
Don't be so naive.
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are talking about us going into recession is a unique event. Being in Europe hasn't stopped it happening before, has it?
posted on 10/6/16
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 27 minutes ago
Twelve month recession? It will take time to fall into a recession but it will last longer than 12 months.
it'll last longer than 12 months? says who? where's their guarantee? where's the empirical evidence? not predictions, projections, opinions. actual. definitive. empirical evidence.
there isn't any.
The short sharp shock will be devaluation of the £. This will mean the Bank of England has a decision to make on whether to increase interest rates or let the £ drop in value
both of which would be good for overseas investment into the uk, and uk exports.
thus boosting our economy and helping to create jobs. that'll be such a disaster wouldn't it?
everything you come out with would have both positive and negative effects on parts of our economy. the economists don't know what the net result will be. the politicians don't know what the net result will be, i don't know what the net result will be, you don't know what the net result will be.
stop claiming it'll be this, or that'll happen. you don't know, you can't know. that's the whole bloody point. no-one can say right now, that in or out is definitely the best decision 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now... ad infinitum.
anyone that claims otherwise is lying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the side that can convince the morning st that their views are what will happen. If Salmon was more forceful the Scots would have independence on his production of increased investment and bankrolling it all via oil cash.......
posted on 10/6/16
The empirical evidence is that no recession in economic history has lasted for less than 12 months, with most of them lasting a lot longer.
printed july 10th, 1981.
New york, - the economic decline that began in january 1980 bottomed out just seven months later, making it the shortest recession on record, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research
the non-profit research group's business cycle dating committee, composed of seven academic economists, is considered the most authoritative voice on the existence, timing and duration of recessions.
so the empirical evidence is YOU ARE WRONG.
and this was printed on may 15 2008:
If a growing number of economists are to believed, the much-foretold recession of 2008 hasn't happened and probably won't happen. One economist, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, says, "The numbers we've seen recently haven't been as bad as we were led to believe just a few months ago."
The part in this article that jumps out me was this paragraph: "In February, Global Insight joined Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS and Merrill Lynch in declaring the U.S. to be in recession. Now, Global Insight's Brian Bethune says that while the firm is still forecasting a recession, "it's conceivable we could avoid it."
Huh? First we were in a recession, then maybe we might be headed for a recession, then maybe we won't ever see that recession
so much for the vaunted experience and knowledge of economists.
i would trust them to predict they were going to fart with more than 20% accuracy.
and you all claim to be studying the facts and providing evidence and listening to the experts, so far the only ones that seem to have actually posted any facts in this thread have been on the leave side.
Page 6 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9