OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

[piquant]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

It's an odd idea that those willing to move country will end up earning an average wage, pretty much by definition they're a the group with the determination to improve their earnings potential

[piquant]

Boris won a Kings scholarship to Eton and another scholarship to Oxford. Those don't tend to go to the intellectually underpowered.

which makes him all the more culpable for the lies he told campaigning, for which he has not been held to account for

Perhaps. The same of course can be said of Tony Blair, who is I am sure, also a very smart cookie. Smart people are often also monumental plum.

Didn't Blair get a 3rd? Mind Johnson did a duff subject in the Classics, these days that should see the recipient asking if people want fries with their order.

[dr dre2]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

It's an odd idea that those willing to move country will end up earning an average wage, pretty much by definition they're a the group with the determination to improve their earnings potential

The eastern Europeans are doing that by earning the average wage, and they drag the numbers down. If they were in the higher wage bracket they'd be closer to the 64p (Young unattached, newly arrived from state that was a member prior to 2004). Your assumption is wrong and factored in.

But I've also done it on the per capita tax take and the 3,000,000 produce enough profit to build 6000 homes. But lets assume they pay more than their fair share, double it, treble it, times it by 20? = 3m people cover the cost of 120,000 homes it doesn't make it look all that great if they pay £140,000 in tax each per year, the infrastructure is getting diluted by a factor of out of control.

If 300,000 arrive (new more profitable ones) they earn us more before they settle down and take less, 12p (eastern europeans) on the pound. If they take 100,000 homes to live in. They generate a profit of £263,000,000 enough to build 1400 homes. I use homes a finite resource and unit of infrastructure for something that is hard to visualise. But that 263m is still only £2.42 profit per day per head.

[piquant]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

It's an odd idea that those willing to move country will end up earning an average wage, pretty much by definition they're a the group with the determination to improve their earnings potential

The eastern Europeans are doing that by earning the average wage, and they drag the numbers down. If they were in the higher wage bracket they'd be closer to the 64p (Young unattached, newly arrived from state that was a member prior to 2004). Your assumption is wrong and factored in.

Is this about where they are now, or where they'd be?

I commented on the notion you'd expressed that if they stay they'll gravitate towards the mean, which I suspect unlikely. Those that stay are likely to earn above average, some might settle, but if you're willing to move hundreds of miles to a different country it does rather suggest a can do attitude, and history suggests the labour force which moves voluntarily for the chance to succeed rather capitalises on that chance. There's also a decent chance that those moving are disproportionately going to be more highly educated/skilled than the norm which again would tend to boost their chances to go above the average earnings, albeit many of them may initially move to take up jobs below their potential (though this does mean we'll see a boost in productivity allied to a curb to wage inflation whilst they're getting started)

[dr dre2]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

It's an odd idea that those willing to move country will end up earning an average wage, pretty much by definition they're a the group with the determination to improve their earnings potential

The eastern Europeans are doing that by earning the average wage, and they drag the numbers down. If they were in the higher wage bracket they'd be closer to the 64p (Young unattached, newly arrived from state that was a member prior to 2004). Your assumption is wrong and factored in.

Is this about where they are now, or where they'd be?

I commented on the notion you'd expressed that if they stay they'll gravitate towards the mean, which I suspect unlikely. Those that stay are likely to earn above average, some might settle, but if you're willing to move hundreds of miles to a different country it does rather suggest a can do attitude, and history suggests the labour force which moves voluntarily for the chance to succeed rather capitalises on that chance. There's also a decent chance that those moving are disproportionately going to be more highly educated/skilled than the norm which again would tend to boost their chances to go above the average earnings, albeit many of them may initially move to take up jobs below their potential (though this does mean we'll see a boost in productivity allied to a curb to wage inflation whilst they're getting started)

The figures are there for you. times the tax they pay by 20 if you wish, assume they pay £140k, not £7k they still only produce 5% profit, enough to build 120,000 homes (3 million people). I've also outlined the more profitable eastern Europeans above at their highest rate before they settle down.

[piquant]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

It's an odd idea that those willing to move country will end up earning an average wage, pretty much by definition they're a the group with the determination to improve their earnings potential

The eastern Europeans are doing that by earning the average wage, and they drag the numbers down. If they were in the higher wage bracket they'd be closer to the 64p (Young unattached, newly arrived from state that was a member prior to 2004). Your assumption is wrong and factored in.

Is this about where they are now, or where they'd be?

I commented on the notion you'd expressed that if they stay they'll gravitate towards the mean, which I suspect unlikely. Those that stay are likely to earn above average, some might settle, but if you're willing to move hundreds of miles to a different country it does rather suggest a can do attitude, and history suggests the labour force which moves voluntarily for the chance to succeed rather capitalises on that chance. There's also a decent chance that those moving are disproportionately going to be more highly educated/skilled than the norm which again would tend to boost their chances to go above the average earnings, albeit many of them may initially move to take up jobs below their potential (though this does mean we'll see a boost in productivity allied to a curb to wage inflation whilst they're getting started)

The figures are there for you. times the tax they pay by 20 if you wish, assume they pay £140k, not £7k they still only produce 5% profit, enough to build 120,000 homes (3 million people). I've also outlined the more profitable eastern Europeans above at their highest rate before they settle down.

I've know idea if the figures are there for me. There might be some figures you've used, but who compiled them, how and why? And then how are you estimating the black economy? (and it's likely not going out on a limb to suggest a lot of those moving will be to some extent working at least in part in the black economy)

[I like haggis]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

@ the appropriate tax rate it works out at a net benefit to the UK of £4.6bn per year. (Well done whoever said £4bn)

Now

There are 3,000,000 people in wales also, and the budget to service it's infrastructure and provide services, Wales ongoing running costs if you like. With little left over for infrastructure investment currently is £15.3bn. So a reasonable assumption of what it costs to provide maintenance and service to 3m people in the UK on an ongoing basis.

***an adjustment needs to be made, as I'm double counting education. £2bn

So a £8bn loss and a massive squeeze on the existing infrastructure to boot. And next year there will be more... and repeat forever.

Please, publish these in depth studies of yours as you'll be the first person with any evidence that immigration is damaging to the economy!

Edit - most immigrants come from outwith EU and freedom of movement anyway, May could've cut those numbers as Home Secretary but never did, I wonder why.

[dr dre2]

I've know idea if the figures are there for me. There might be some figures you've used, but who compiled them, how and why? And then how are you estimating the black economy? (and it's likely not going out on a limb to suggest a lot of those moving will be to some extent working at least in part in the black economy)

An independent fact checking charity. With regard to the black economy that's a whole new argument against! then we are on to squeezed wages and non contribution. There is a link.

[dr dre2]

5p net gain on every £1 spent on long term EU immigrant.

Assuming average £26,500 earned for the 3,000,000 EU nationals (That's the UK average wage, not all those immigrants are currently long term but if we hit pause now and they are allowed to stay they will down in to that category)

@ the appropriate tax rate it works out at a net benefit to the UK of £4.6bn per year. (Well done whoever said £4bn)

Now

There are 3,000,000 people in wales also, and the budget to service it's infrastructure and provide services, Wales ongoing running costs if you like. With little left over for infrastructure investment currently is £15.3bn. So a reasonable assumption of what it costs to provide maintenance and service to 3m people in the UK on an ongoing basis.

***an adjustment needs to be made, as I'm double counting education. £2bn

So a £8bn loss and a massive squeeze on the existing infrastructure to boot. And next year there will be more... and repeat forever.

Please, publish these in depth studies of yours as you'll be the first person with any evidence that immigration is damaging to the economy!

Edit - most immigrants come from outwith EU and freedom of movement anyway, May could've cut those numbers as Home Secretary but never did, I wonder why.

They are even less profitable, by the time they settle down we are -15% on them, the figures are there for those too.

Profitable immigrant = Pre 2004 EU member who's not got dependants, 64%. Everyone else is a drag.

[piquant]

I've know idea if the figures are there for me. There might be some figures you've used, but who compiled them, how and why? And then how are you estimating the black economy? (and it's likely not going out on a limb to suggest a lot of those moving will be to some extent working at least in part in the black economy)

An independent fact checking charity. With regard to the black economy that's a whole new argument against! then we are on to squeezed wages and non contribution. There is a link.

Do they do the traditional British thing of employing numpties who read Classics to work on their stats? It's not of itself much of a claim that they're an independent fact checking charity, they could easily having reasons for giving the figures they do, they might even have simply made them up, or they could be horribly inaccurate (much like govt. figures in this area)

Also who funds the 'independent' charity? Who audits them, are they continually cleared to work as a charity, and why are they established as a charity?

[Rocketz]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

[fisgard792]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

[DragsterDriver]

3,8,6,2,5,9,4,7

[Rocketz]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

[bimboman]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

Eh? What concession did the Walloons get ?

[easyray]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

That's exactly what the UK has been doing to the EU for the last 30 years. I think the EU will function better without the UK, it's just a pity that the UK will function worse without the EU

[fisgard792]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

That's exactly what the UK has been doing to the EU for the last 30 years. I think the EU will function better without the UK, it's just a pity that the UK will function worse without the EU

2 of the biggest eu-philes are contradicting one another, interesting

[Rocketz]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

That's exactly what the UK has been doing to the EU for the last 30 years. I think the EU will function better without the UK, it's just a pity that the UK will function worse without the EU

2 of the biggest eu-philes are contradicting one another, interesting

tut tut not really. The UK never really wanted to be part of the EU, there was kind of an us and them attitude. Wallonia had clear and present concerns regarding workers rights not questioning the EU or their position in it.

EDIT: If my statement and Easyray's statement seemed contradictory then it doesn't really give me hope for the British negotiators

[easyray]

Signing our trade agreement with Canada

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-201 ... -canada_en

once canada handed the eu commissions arse on a plate, it was never going to take long, eu embarrassment / incompetence has already been done

Dunno

I kind of liked the fact that a small group of people could put a spanner in the works. It shows the system works.

That's exactly what the UK has been doing to the EU for the last 30 years. I think the EU will function better without the UK, it's just a pity that the UK will function worse without the EU

2 of the biggest eu-philes are contradicting one another, interesting

A contradiction? More like an endorsement of what he said.

[Sandstorm]

Britain wishes they were as popular as Canada in the global economy.

[Rugby2023]

Some 42 per cent of Canadian exports to the EU are to the U.K. By comparison, the second-largest destination for Canadian exports in the EU is Germany, a market worth less than a quarter of the U.K.’s market to Canadian exporters.

The British government estimated that Canadian exports to the U.K. would increase by 15 per cent as a result of CETA, while British exports to Canada would increase by 29 per cent — well worth it for both.

But the U.K. is leaving the EU. So even if the EU now cannot complete CETA, the U.K. could have the same deal ready to commence on the day Brexit becomes official.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... brexit-u-k

[topofthemoon]

Or a fairer way of doing it would be with the average tax take per head.

£7300 (Tax take per head, UK average) x 0.05 (Contribution above that paid back) = £365

X head of population (3,000,000) = 1,095,000,000 (£1bn or so)

Or £1 profit a day per head

But what does £1,095,000,000 cover the cost of?

It takes 3,000,000 to cover the cost of building 6000 houses.

You are still massively oversimplifying this. The costs to the public purse for immigrants in the research already includes a share for housing development.

The government only provides around 14% of the costs (which would in any case be substantially less than £182k per property) in grants for construction of new social housing. Most construction would be undertaken by private firms and would provide investment into the economy with a multiplier effect as subcontractors / staff etc. were paid and then they in turn spent their money in the UK.

There is a body of research out there covering as many as possible of the myriad factors involved in public income and expenditure - it would be worth following through the links from Full Fact to the source research.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Fi ... df#page=26

[Rugby2023]

The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing. More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages. Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages. Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

Theresa May.

[I like haggis]

Some 42 per cent of Canadian exports to the EU are to the U.K. By comparison, the second-largest destination for Canadian exports in the EU is Germany, a market worth less than a quarter of the U.K.’s market to Canadian exporters.

The British government estimated that Canadian exports to the U.K. would increase by 15 per cent as a result of CETA, while British exports to Canada would increase by 29 per cent — well worth it for both.

But the U.K. is leaving the EU. So even if the EU now cannot complete CETA, the U.K. could have the same deal ready to commence on the day Brexit becomes official.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... brexit-u-k

Canada will be one of the most receptive countries to a free trade deal with the UK once they have left and I hope Liam Fox is working hard on the groundwork for a deal, although it should be pretty simple to basically rehash CETA.

[I like haggis]

The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing. More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages. Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages. Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

Theresa May.

Where did you find this from?

[Rugby2023]

Where did you find this from?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... l-interest

[Chuckles1188]

European heatmap



Portugal and Ireland are pretty fascinating outliers on there

[TranceNRG]

The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing. More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages. Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages. Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

Theresa May.

Makes perfect sense. Immigration isn't bad but it needs be controlled.

[Hellraiser]

European heatmap



Portugal and Ireland are pretty fascinating outliers on there

Why is Macedonia included on the third map and Cyprus not?

[Chuckles1188]

I presume because the person who assembled the map couldn't get data for the relevant countries in the relevant elections/forecasts

[dr dre2]

Or a fairer way of doing it would be with the average tax take per head.

£7300 (Tax take per head, UK average) x 0.05 (Contribution above that paid back) = £365

X head of population (3,000,000) = 1,095,000,000 (£1bn or so)

Or £1 profit a day per head

But what does £1,095,000,000 cover the cost of?

It takes 3,000,000 to cover the cost of building 6000 houses.

You are still massively oversimplifying this. The costs to the public purse for immigrants in the research already includes a share for housing development.

The government only provides around 14% of the costs (which would in any case be substantially less than £182k per property) in grants for construction of new social housing. Most construction would be undertaken by private firms and would provide investment into the economy with a multiplier effect as subcontractors / staff etc. were paid and then they in turn spent their money in the UK.

There is a body of research out there covering as many as possible of the myriad factors involved in public income and expenditure - it would be worth following through the links from Full Fact to the source research.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Fi ... df#page=26

I've explained most of that. I was not making a direct comparison on government spending on housing, I used housing as a visualisation of what the pittance they provide can pay for, in comparison to the dilution of existing infrastructure 3m people make, as in they don't go anywhere near covering the cost of the new infrastructure their presence requires. The 182k is what TW say it costs. What they (and we already pay for is a piss in the ocean of what's needed even before their presence is calculated).

They represent a net loss on living standards. And please bare in mind I've credited the whole 3,000,000 as being economically active adults when they not all are. All that to reach £1bn!! And also bare in mind the French, Germans et al (the ones we hope to encourage to come still). are in with that lot, the profitable ones. Now if they were removed I suspect a direct net loss on contribution on Eastern Europeans.

[jorwar]

David Blanchflower sums up the Mayhem government and the loons who attack Mark the mounty who, God preserve us, will sign up for more years as the a Governor.

"I find it astonishing that in the space of a few days, non-economists William Hague and Michael Gove write newspaper columns attacking central bank independence while Daniel Hannan, a former journalist and a Eurosceptic Tory MEP, goes on the BBC denouncing Carney in similar terms, in an apparently coordinated campaign.

There were even utterly idiotic suggestions that Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory MP who knows no economics and has a degree in history, should replace Carney. It was even mooted that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts should be ignored if they dared to suggest the economy was slowing. Liam Fox, who is a medical doctor with no training in economics, astonishingly ordered Chancellor Philip Hammond not to start “Project Fear Two” in the latest Brexit spat. Fox apparently urged Hammond not to inject fiscal stimulus as it may cause Britons to “wrongly” panic about the impact Brexit may have on the economy. As the Bible advises: “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips” (Proverbs 14:7).

The Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has argued, rightly, that there seems to be a “large element of shooting the messenger in the attacks on Carney. He warned of the short-term difficulties Brexit might create, and helped take decisive action to avoid those dangers. But to the Brexiteers, it is an article of faith that Brexit can only bring good, so in their make believe world Carney is responsible for talking down the economy.” He isn’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ent-brexit

[merry!]

interesting read about the euro..

http://capx.co/external/the-failure-of-the-euro/

love this bit..

So now what? The United Kingdom’s shock vote to leave the European Union was a warning about the gap between angry voters and pro-immigration, pro-globalization élites. As Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Union, has memorably said, “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get reëlected after we’ve done it.” That doesn’t sound like a prediction of radical reform. It’s a dangerous moment for Europe. Stiglitz observes that if the countries that committed to the single currency in 1992 had known what they know now, and if people had had the chance to vote on the proposal, “it is hard to see how they could have supported it.” That’s a hell of an indictment.

[I like haggis]

David Blanchflower sums up the Mayhem government and the loons who attack Mark the mounty who, God preserve us, will sign up for more years as the a Governor.

"I find it astonishing that in the space of a few days, non-economists William Hague and Michael Gove write newspaper columns attacking central bank independence while Daniel Hannan, a former journalist and a Eurosceptic Tory MEP, goes on the BBC denouncing Carney in similar terms, in an apparently coordinated campaign.

There were even utterly idiotic suggestions that Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory MP who knows no economics and has a degree in history, should replace Carney. It was even mooted that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts should be ignored if they dared to suggest the economy was slowing. Liam Fox, who is a medical doctor with no training in economics, astonishingly ordered Chancellor Philip Hammond not to start “Project Fear Two” in the latest Brexit spat. Fox apparently urged Hammond not to inject fiscal stimulus as it may cause Britons to “wrongly” panic about the impact Brexit may have on the economy. As the Bible advises: “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips” (Proverbs 14:7).

The Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has argued, rightly, that there seems to be a “large element of shooting the messenger in the attacks on Carney. He warned of the short-term difficulties Brexit might create, and helped take decisive action to avoid those dangers. But to the Brexiteers, it is an article of faith that Brexit can only bring good, so in their make believe world Carney is responsible for talking down the economy.” He isn’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ent-brexit

May has today backed him publicly - or her office has anyway. Which is odd because her conference speech legitimised all this. But that's Theresa May for you, talks a good game but doesn't play one. I guess talk is all that matters in politics these days, better to be seen to do something than actually do it.

[A5D5E5]

David Blanchflower sums up the Mayhem government and the loons who attack Mark the mounty who, God preserve us, will sign up for more years as the a Governor.

"I find it astonishing that in the space of a few days, non-economists William Hague and Michael Gove write newspaper columns attacking central bank independence while Daniel Hannan, a former journalist and a Eurosceptic Tory MEP, goes on the BBC denouncing Carney in similar terms, in an apparently coordinated campaign.

There were even utterly idiotic suggestions that Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory MP who knows no economics and has a degree in history, should replace Carney. It was even mooted that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts should be ignored if they dared to suggest the economy was slowing. Liam Fox, who is a medical doctor with no training in economics, astonishingly ordered Chancellor Philip Hammond not to start “Project Fear Two” in the latest Brexit spat. Fox apparently urged Hammond not to inject fiscal stimulus as it may cause Britons to “wrongly” panic about the impact Brexit may have on the economy. As the Bible advises: “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips” (Proverbs 14:7).

The Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has argued, rightly, that there seems to be a “large element of shooting the messenger in the attacks on Carney. He warned of the short-term difficulties Brexit might create, and helped take decisive action to avoid those dangers. But to the Brexiteers, it is an article of faith that Brexit can only bring good, so in their make believe world Carney is responsible for talking down the economy.” He isn’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ent-brexit

Oh Christ. If David Blanchflower is backing him, I image Carney is already back in Canada and the job advert drafted.

[Chuckles1188]

David Blanchflower sums up the Mayhem government and the loons who attack Mark the mounty who, God preserve us, will sign up for more years as the a Governor.

"I find it astonishing that in the space of a few days, non-economists William Hague and Michael Gove write newspaper columns attacking central bank independence while Daniel Hannan, a former journalist and a Eurosceptic Tory MEP, goes on the BBC denouncing Carney in similar terms, in an apparently coordinated campaign.

There were even utterly idiotic suggestions that Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory MP who knows no economics and has a degree in history, should replace Carney. It was even mooted that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts should be ignored if they dared to suggest the economy was slowing. Liam Fox, who is a medical doctor with no training in economics, astonishingly ordered Chancellor Philip Hammond not to start “Project Fear Two” in the latest Brexit spat. Fox apparently urged Hammond not to inject fiscal stimulus as it may cause Britons to “wrongly” panic about the impact Brexit may have on the economy. As the Bible advises: “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips” (Proverbs 14:7).

The Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has argued, rightly, that there seems to be a “large element of shooting the messenger in the attacks on Carney. He warned of the short-term difficulties Brexit might create, and helped take decisive action to avoid those dangers. But to the Brexiteers, it is an article of faith that Brexit can only bring good, so in their make believe world Carney is responsible for talking down the economy.” He isn’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ent-brexit

Oh Christ. If David Blanchflower is backing him, I image Carney is already back in Canada and the job advert drafted.

Why? Because he was in a room with McDonnell a couple of times?

[Rocketz]

One of the best articles about Brexit by LSE

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... ign=buffer

John Van Reenen was disappointed but not surprised by the UK’s vote to Leave the EU. Whilst his own research predicts serious economic and political damage in the case of Brexit, he thought a Leave vote was a real possibility ever since David Cameron committed to a vote in 2013. In his last post as Director of LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance, he gives his verdict on the campaigns, the media, politicians, and being a derided expert.

The British people have suffered tremendously since the financial crisis. The real wages of the average person fell by about 10 per cent between 2007 and 2015. This is not about inequality – poor, middle and rich have all lost out. It has been the longest sustained fall in average pay since the Great Depression and it has made people very angry with the establishment – and rightly so. As LSE’s Professor Stephen Machin, the new Director of the Centre for Economic Performance has shown, the areas with the biggest falls in average wages were the places most likely to vote for Brexit.

The BBC also failed to reflect the consensus view of the economics profession on the harm of Brexit. A huge survey of British economists showed that for every one respondent who thought there would be economic benefits from Brexit over the next five years, there were 22 who thought we would be worse off. Yet time and again, there would always be some maverick Leave economist given equal airtime to anyone articulating the standard arguments

There are many other notable features of the Brexit vote – including the fact that Remain had a voting majority for those under 50 years of age and also in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is shocking that a constitutional rupture can be made based on 37 per cent of the eligible voters. We take decades debating and prevaricating on major infrastructure projects like Heathrow and Hinkley Point, yet are prepared to gamble with something even more important for our futures on a simple one-off in-out referendum.

[zzzz]

David Blanchflower sums up the Mayhem government and the loons who attack Mark the mounty who, God preserve us, will sign up for more years as the a Governor.

"I find it astonishing that in the space of a few days, non-economists William Hague and Michael Gove write newspaper columns attacking central bank independence while Daniel Hannan, a former journalist and a Eurosceptic Tory MEP, goes on the BBC denouncing Carney in similar terms, in an apparently coordinated campaign.

There were even utterly idiotic suggestions that Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory MP who knows no economics and has a degree in history, should replace Carney. It was even mooted that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts should be ignored if they dared to suggest the economy was slowing. Liam Fox, who is a medical doctor with no training in economics, astonishingly ordered Chancellor Philip Hammond not to start “Project Fear Two” in the latest Brexit spat. Fox apparently urged Hammond not to inject fiscal stimulus as it may cause Britons to “wrongly” panic about the impact Brexit may have on the economy. As the Bible advises: “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips” (Proverbs 14:7).

The Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has argued, rightly, that there seems to be a “large element of shooting the messenger in the attacks on Carney. He warned of the short-term difficulties Brexit might create, and helped take decisive action to avoid those dangers. But to the Brexiteers, it is an article of faith that Brexit can only bring good, so in their make believe world Carney is responsible for talking down the economy.” He isn’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ent-brexit

Oh Christ. If David Blanchflower is backing him, I image Carney is already back in Canada and the job advert drafted.

Why? Because he was in a room with McDonnell a couple of times?

That ought to be enough for anyone but Blanchflower has pretty much got every economic call he made as a member of the MPC wrong. I'm generally sympathetic to Carney but Blanchflower really aint the guy to lead the "fight back of the experts".

[dr dre2]

One of the best articles about Brexit by LSE

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... ign=buffer

John Van Reenen was disappointed but not surprised by the UK’s vote to Leave the EU. Whilst his own research predicts serious economic and political damage in the case of Brexit, he thought a Leave vote was a real possibility ever since David Cameron committed to a vote in 2013. In his last post as Director of LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance, he gives his verdict on the campaigns, the media, politicians, and being a derided expert.

The British people have suffered tremendously since the financial crisis. The real wages of the average person fell by about 10 per cent between 2007 and 2015. This is not about inequality – poor, middle and rich have all lost out. It has been the longest sustained fall in average pay since the Great Depression and it has made people very angry with the establishment – and rightly so. As LSE’s Professor Stephen Machin, the new Director of the Centre for Economic Performance has shown, the areas with the biggest falls in average wages were the places most likely to vote for Brexit.

The BBC also failed to reflect the consensus view of the economics profession on the harm of Brexit. A huge survey of British economists showed that for every one respondent who thought there would be economic benefits from Brexit over the next five years, there were 22 who thought we would be worse off. Yet time and again, there would always be some maverick Leave economist given equal airtime to anyone articulating the standard arguments

There are many other notable features of the Brexit vote – including the fact that Remain had a voting majority for those under 50 years of age and also in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is shocking that a constitutional rupture can be made based on 37 per cent of the eligible voters. We take decades debating and prevaricating on major infrastructure projects like Heathrow and Hinkley Point, yet are prepared to gamble with something even more important for our futures on a simple one-off in-out referendum.

Record number of people who voted for anything ever in the UK, the 27.8% who didn't bother voting didn't care either way they spoke for themselves just fine, I think he's suggesting democracy doesn't work and egg heads should formulate a plan in excel. The economic argument was won for remain. He has a point with the disaffected people but not quite right on why, he gives no value at all to the sense of nationality, because he doesn't feel it, but it's something so powerful it can be suppressed for a few millennia and then as soon as it sees light, bloom like it was never suppressed. He has no time for such trivial matters, just sees zeros and ones. The people should absolutely get a say in how they are run, the people should absolutely vote with their heart. People were disaffected over money, money is the best measure or figures are. Fairness is perceived and people will give and take but when the take moves to 30/70 against they snap. Less than 60% of your perceived fair value is where you snap and that includes bending culturally as well as financially. What allowances are being made for others? Of course you take more notice when you have less but that doesn't make it paranoia or more fair, it just brings it in to focus. The more people with their eye of the fairness meter in harsh economic times increases for sure. There is always a bounce back, it happens everywhere, it happens all the time. It's best just to take the concerns of the people in to account even in the good times, it's best not to force what they don't want on them and sugar coat it to make it easier to swallow, because when you run out of sugar they wont eat it anymore.

[JJR]

The most stable country in the history of mankind, and probably the most boring, by the way, is Switzerland. It’s not even a city-state environment; it’s a municipal state. Most decisions are made at the local level, which allows for distributed errors that don’t adversely affect the wider system. Meanwhile, people want a united Europe, more alignment, and look at the problems. The solution is right in the middle of Europe — Switzerland. It’s not united! It doesn’t have a Brussels! It doesn’t need one.

Anyone familiar with Taleb's work should be aware of how prescient he is.