4 ms·

> "(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to

> "(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)" How is it going to ruin our country? Let's be realistic. Will there be an economic downturn? Signs point to yes. However, businesses do not pass up the opportunity to make money for long. Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable. Imports and exports will be affected whilst markets adjust, and hopefully there'll be a soft Brexit to make this adjustment period quicker, but even with hard Brexit the economy will stabilise and grow in time. Products intended for domestic markets may end up becoming more attractive for investors in the short term whilst this period of uncertainty plays out. There are always ways to make money, and those who keep their cool are much more likely to spot those opportunities than those who panic.

moomin 9y ago
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but I don't think your conclusions are supported by your argument. The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off. Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it. Now, there's a problem with this analysis, which is that Brexit hasn't happened yet. This cuts both ways: the final state hasn't been reached, but also the economy's a lot more resilient inside the EU than outside, because the lack of tariff and non-tariff barriers helps with the rebalancing you describe. So, for the future, a good question is: how are our preparations going? Well, the NAO says that they're barely going at all, the repeal bill says we're basically going to have to put up with direct monarchial rule to survive and to date we seem to be capitulating on every point of contention. What's worse is the points we're not capitulating on, because we're an 1/8th of the way through the process and haven't even got the status of EU citizens sorted out. Even if the negotiations go well, we're talking about ripping up 40 years of settled U.K. law and replacing it with... well, ministers haven't decided yet, but they don't want parliament to have a vote when they do. So, as I see it there's basically two possible outcomes here: 1) the EU retains most of the benefits of U.K. membership 2) hard Brexit. Die-hard Leavers have long argued that the EU is too complex, and the EU shows no inclination to make it more complex to suit Britain. Either way, we will be worse placed to trade with the rest of the world. You're right, even in the case of hard Brexit the economy would eventually grow again. Would it grow as fast as it would within the EU? There's no reason to believe so. So we're looking at a huge one off hit and permanent reduced growth. Sorry, this is quite long and probably not as clear as I'd hoped. I've also probably missed a fair number of important points. I haven't even touched on the _non_economic problems with leaving the EU. But I think it's clear that, while there are always ways to make money, Brexit is likely to be a negative sum game.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Thank you for your considered reply. I did read all of it, but I'd like to focus on the following first: > "The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off. Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it." The following distinctions are slightly crude, but hopefully they serve a purpose. There's a difference between the productive economy and the speculative economy. The productive economy is based around changes in the material world. The speculative economy is based around opinions. Stock markets are effectively opinion poll trackers (opinions either baked into mathematical models or in the heads of traders). It's no surprise that the pound dropped after the Brexit result, because we're looking at a period of uncertainty, which makes predictions harder and traders more risk averse. However, in the productive economy in the same time period, there hasn't been an 80% drop in the output of the real economy. The jobs market is still strong, people still produce roughly the same level of goods and services as they did a year ago, etc... What I predict will happen after the period of uncertainty ends is that opinions will catch up to reality and traders will realise their models of economic output were out, leading to a readjustment in the stock markets. The problem is, as people have gotten so hysterical about Brexit, the period of uncertainty will probably last longer than it should, and this loss of confidence can have an impact on the productive economy over time. That's my main concern over Brexit, that it'll be the reaction to it that causes a longer economic downturn than is necessary. My only hope with this is linked to more people becoming adept at seeing through the mechanisms of the UK's toxic media institutions.
renaudg 9y ago
That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :) I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without. It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles). That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)" Yeah, I'm Theresa May, ask me anything. ;-) > "I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without." If the only consideration was the economy I'd agree with you, but there's more at play here than just the economy. > "It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles). That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime." Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?
  - allendoerfer 9y ago
    > Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU? I am very much pro EU. I also see flaws with the current EU, but to me they can only be solved by more EU not by stepping back. More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems. To me the benefits (stance in the world, peace, freedom of movement) outweigh the costs and problems by such a huge margin. I was born after the cold war and to me the integrity of states or peace always seemed like a solved issue, but as you can see in Ukraine it is not at all. Compare problems of that scale to working out some bugs in a monetary union, which btw. is even working pretty well, considering that something like this has never worked before. It is a monumental and exciting project. Some sort of peaceful empire, where every nation and people actually benefits and nobody is forced to participate. We are basically writing history. To me "Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.", seems like a perfect ending of the current chapter.
technofiend 9y ago
>Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable. So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state. And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain. There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU. The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-finance-brussels-thinktank-city-banking-eu-bruegel https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-f...
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain." The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?
  - technofiend 9y ago
    Is there opportunity? Sure. Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs? I am extremely skeptical such a thing is possible for Britain and until that happens the revenue to Britain's economy and tax coffers are undeniably lost and cannot be recovered. You are once again blithely ignoring the fact that brexit directly resulted in finance companies moving out of Britain. There is no backfill by competitors to be had. In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.

moomin 9y ago

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but I don't think your conclusions are supported by your argument. The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off. Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it. Now, there's a problem with this analysis, which is that Brexit hasn't happened yet. This cuts both ways: the final state hasn't been reached, but also the economy's a lot more resilient inside the EU than outside, because the lack of tariff and non-tariff barriers helps with the rebalancing you describe. So, for the future, a good question is: how are our preparations going? Well, the NAO says that they're barely going at all, the repeal bill says we're basically going to have to put up with direct monarchial rule to survive and to date we seem to be capitulating on every point of contention. What's worse is the points we're not capitulating on, because we're an 1/8th of the way through the process and haven't even got the status of EU citizens sorted out. Even if the negotiations go well, we're talking about ripping up 40 years of settled U.K. law and replacing it with... well, ministers haven't decided yet, but they don't want parliament to have a vote when they do. So, as I see it there's basically two possible outcomes here: 1) the EU retains most of the benefits of U.K. membership 2) hard Brexit. Die-hard Leavers have long argued that the EU is too complex, and the EU shows no inclination to make it more complex to suit Britain. Either way, we will be worse placed to trade with the rest of the world. You're right, even in the case of hard Brexit the economy would eventually grow again. Would it grow as fast as it would within the EU? There's no reason to believe so. So we're looking at a huge one off hit and permanent reduced growth. Sorry, this is quite long and probably not as clear as I'd hoped. I've also probably missed a fair number of important points. I haven't even touched on the _non_economic problems with leaving the EU. But I think it's clear that, while there are always ways to make money, Brexit is likely to be a negative sum game.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
Thank you for your considered reply. I did read all of it, but I'd like to focus on the following first: > "The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off. Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it." The following distinctions are slightly crude, but hopefully they serve a purpose. There's a difference between the productive economy and the speculative economy. The productive economy is based around changes in the material world. The speculative economy is based around opinions. Stock markets are effectively opinion poll trackers (opinions either baked into mathematical models or in the heads of traders). It's no surprise that the pound dropped after the Brexit result, because we're looking at a period of uncertainty, which makes predictions harder and traders more risk averse. However, in the productive economy in the same time period, there hasn't been an 80% drop in the output of the real economy. The jobs market is still strong, people still produce roughly the same level of goods and services as they did a year ago, etc... What I predict will happen after the period of uncertainty ends is that opinions will catch up to reality and traders will realise their models of economic output were out, leading to a readjustment in the stock markets. The problem is, as people have gotten so hysterical about Brexit, the period of uncertainty will probably last longer than it should, and this loss of confidence can have an impact on the productive economy over time. That's my main concern over Brexit, that it'll be the reaction to it that causes a longer economic downturn than is necessary. My only hope with this is linked to more people becoming adept at seeing through the mechanisms of the UK's toxic media institutions.

renaudg 9y ago

That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :) I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without. It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles). That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)" Yeah, I'm Theresa May, ask me anything. ;-) > "I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without." If the only consideration was the economy I'd agree with you, but there's more at play here than just the economy. > "It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles). That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime." Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?
- allendoerfer 9y ago
  > Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU? I am very much pro EU. I also see flaws with the current EU, but to me they can only be solved by more EU not by stepping back. More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems. To me the benefits (stance in the world, peace, freedom of movement) outweigh the costs and problems by such a huge margin. I was born after the cold war and to me the integrity of states or peace always seemed like a solved issue, but as you can see in Ukraine it is not at all. Compare problems of that scale to working out some bugs in a monetary union, which btw. is even working pretty well, considering that something like this has never worked before. It is a monumental and exciting project. Some sort of peaceful empire, where every nation and people actually benefits and nobody is forced to participate. We are basically writing history. To me "Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.", seems like a perfect ending of the current chapter.

technofiend 9y ago

>Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable. So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state. And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain. There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU. The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-finance-brussels-thinktank-city-banking-eu-bruegel https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-f...

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain." The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?
- technofiend 9y ago
  Is there opportunity? Sure. Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs? I am extremely skeptical such a thing is possible for Britain and until that happens the revenue to Britain's economy and tax coffers are undeniably lost and cannot be recovered. You are once again blithely ignoring the fact that brexit directly resulted in finance companies moving out of Britain. There is no backfill by competitors to be had. In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.