4 ms·

The UK was already in recession by time. Soros most definitely did not cause it. The British economy rebounded sharply afterwards, helped at least in part by th

• falcolas 5y ago
  > that British labour was suddenly more price competitive That seems to translate to "workers were getting paid less and their savings were devalued" to me. Am I mistaken?
  • unmole 5y ago
    > That seems to translate to "workers were getting paid less and their savings were devalued" to me. Am I mistaken? Sure, that's one way to look at it. But then you have to ask yourself why countries deliberately try to devalue their currencies and why other countries get mad when that happens.
    • falcolas 5y ago
      I don't know, why would workers whose compensation has been effectively cut be mad at some billionaire who did it to make more billions? This isn't just about countries as an abstract. It's about the people and the impact on them.
      • unmole 5y ago
        > whose compensation has been effectively cut Black Wednesday happened in 1992. In 1991 inflation in the UK was 7.46%, in 1992 it dropped to 4.59% and in 1993 to 2.56%. So, who was really responsible for reducing the purchasing power of British workers? Soros or the BoE?
  • fluster 5y ago
    Another way to translate it would be “the cost of British labour was reduced, pushing down the artificially high unemployment rate,” but the best way would probably be both of the above at the same time, and some other more complicated stuff I don’t know or understand. My point isn’t this was actually a really good thing, but it’s not as straightforward as you’re making it out to be.