This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
steeleye20 Croydon 21 Apr 17 6.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
I don't really have any other figures to go on, I'm afraid. Do you? I concede that not everything can be a fiddle. regards
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 6.17pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Not entirely credible, as it's the LSE, but I get the impression you're the type to lap up whatever they say: Most forecasters predicted that the impact of Brexit on the economy and investment would be negative even in the short term. They definitely have been proved wrong. The UK’s real GDP grew by 2% in 2016, well above predictions. Since the referendum, the country’s economy has grown faster than that of the eurozone. Business investment, employment and stock market performance have all exceeded expectations. According to UNCTAD, inward FDI to the UK surged to US9 billion in 2016, the second highest in the world, behind the US, representing a six-fold increase over the 2015 total (when the UK ranked 12th). Of the total, 1 billion was due to one mega-deal acquisition, but notably this was finalised after the Brexit referendum. As for the IMF, I don't "try to use" the stats in any shape or form: I referred to them, and did so qualitatively. Your claim I "tried" (and presumably failed) to "use them" in an unqualified way is utterly pathetic and decidedly condescending. I said "Another upwards growth adjustment from the IMF". Is this incorrect? Was there an upwards growth adjustment, or are they predicting a slowdown? The claims: The reality: Question: IMF Brexitageddon: Let's compare to their projections as of now: So yes, well done trying to temper the positive outlook with "but, but, they're DOWNGRADING GROWTH by 0.2% in 2018 - zOMG! OMG!". The IMF has had to issue upwards growth adjustments (from memory) three times since the referendum. Nothing to say they won't do so again for 2018. Nothing to say they will as well - that's the problem with reading tea leaves. As you seem so very keen to quote Nobel prizewinning Economists (lol - I mean Joseph "the Euro is a threat to the future of Europe" Stiglitz?), perhaps you might introspect somewhat with this, and consider if perhaps you've been "phooled": De todos modos, I'm not really going to be issuing put-downs to each of your posts throughout the run-up to the GE. It would seem you have more time to spend on here than I (though you were sorely missed for the EU to-ing and fro-ing on here), but I'll be sure to have a skim-through and a chuckle as often as I can.
Why use IMF figures if you're so critical of them? And if you use them you shouldn't then leave out the bit where they talk about them being MORE pessimistic about the long term than pre-referendum despite upgrading short term estimates. You also ignore the reason for growth and the underlying structural problems in the economy, added to the fact that GDP is a pretty imperfect measure of living standards or how an economy is faring. That article basically just says most people are confident about FDI post-brexit however this will depend on what deal we end up with. It also talks about opportunities for the UK to deregulate and further cut corporation tax, both of which would be bad for the economy. Also it doesn't really address the fact that much of the 2016 FDI was opportunistic and as a result of a cheap pound. The value of sterling is a barometer of investor confidence in the underlying economy. The article doesn't deal with what FDI would have been like in the absence of Brexit, just that "it will remain robust, probably". I'm not sure I get the point of your Akerlof article. Stiglitz' views on the Euro are pretty reasonble, but not sure how they are relevant to either Brexit or the upcoming GE. When mentioning him I've been discussing his work on the causes, impacts and solutions for inequality and how he highlights the damage that it does to an economy. I readily admit growth figures for 2017 are better than predicted pre referendum but the impact of Brexit positive or negative won't be fully felt simply in the short term. The GDP figures or CEO confidence surveys don't scratch beneath the surface. I still haven't read anything that says Brexit will be better than the alternative. Just it's not been that bad yet and might not be.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 21 Apr 17 6.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by pefwin
That's one out of three. Please give my best regards to your wife I am sure she is a great lovely strong woman. But can we stay on topic? GE 2017. What's really sad is not the fact that you are a gobs***e. You know you do nothing to help people of a different 'skin colour or religion'. What is really sad is that you hate yourself because of your white, middle class privilege. It obviously torments you. Enjoy whom you are and be proud of it. White, middle class and wealthy. You are encouraging others, rightly, to be proud of themselves. Why can't you be happy as well? Edited by matt_himself (21 Apr 2017 6.24pm)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
davenotamonkey 21 Apr 17 6.32pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Why use IMF figures if you're so critical of them? And if you use them you shouldn't then leave out the bit where they talk about them being MORE pessimistic about the long term than pre-referendum despite upgrading short term estimates. You also ignore the reason for growth and the underlying structural problems in the economy, added to the fact that GDP is a pretty imperfect measure of living standards or how an economy is faring. That article basically just says most people are confident about FDI post-brexit however this will depend on what deal we end up with. It also talks about opportunities for the UK to deregulate and further cut corporation tax, both of which would be bad for the economy. Also it doesn't really address the fact that much of the 2016 FDI was opportunistic and as a result of a cheap pound. The value of sterling is a barometer of investor confidence in the underlying economy. The article doesn't deal with what FDI would have been like in the absence of Brexit, just that "it will remain robust, probably". I'm not sure I get the point of your Akerlof article. Stiglitz' views on the Euro are pretty reasonble, but not sure how they are relevant to either Brexit or the upcoming GE. When mentioning him I've been discussing his work on the causes, impacts and solutions for inequality and how he highlights the damage that it does to an economy. I readily admit growth figures for 2017 are better than predicted pre referendum but the impact of Brexit positive or negative won't be fully felt simply in the short term. The GDP figures or CEO confidence surveys don't scratch beneath the surface. I still haven't read anything that says Brexit will be better than the alternative. Just it's not been that bad yet and might not be.
It really doesn't matter what I post, you will do your best to discredit or deflect, such is your confirmation bias. Sorry, but yawn! It's Friday PM, and my super-hot "foreign" other half is waiting. Off to buy some foreign-sounding wine and wax lyrical about the Zollverein and other outdated customs unions unfit for the 21st Century.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Apr 17 6.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
What do you actually do to better society for the less fortunate? I home tutor kids with terminal illness. Don't get paid if kids too sick to be tutored. Many carers are hardly paid anything, It's hardly an incentive to go into these professions is it. Tory policy, fleece those that help society.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 7.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I home tutor kids with terminal illness. Don't get paid if kids too sick to be tutored. Many carers are hardly paid anything, It's hardly an incentive to go into these professions is it. Tory policy, fleece those that help society. Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they? Ridiculous person.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Apr 17 7.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they? Ridiculous person. No but they didn't have to get into s***loads of debt to work for the public in the public sector.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 7.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
No but they didn't have to get into s***loads of debt to work for the public in the public sector. The idea that everyone is so much worse off under the Tories is fantasy. Wages have been stagnating mainly because of immigration. The plus side has been a low inflation rate which has help millions with their mortgages by thousands of pounds. It is funny how people always forget so quickly. It only seems like yesterday when most people were glad to see the back of Labour.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 21 Apr 17 7.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Oh for god sake. They were all driving around in Rolls Royce under Labour were they? Ridiculous person. Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them. Everyone has long memories round here, NOT.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 7.55pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by pefwin
Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them. Everyone has long memories round here, NOT. You mean they actually had to do something for all the money they pay themselves? Do you know how much of donations actually goes to the needy? Not much.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
elgrande bedford 21 Apr 17 7.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by pefwin
Actually Cameron's big society was a drive to replace public services with Local Charities and volunteer work etc., to which many Charities objected as it was tantamount to fleecing them. Everyone has long memories round here, NOT. Maybe if labour hadn't increased the public sector trough by over 600,000 there might have been more wage rises.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 21 Apr 17 8.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You mean they actually had to do something for all the money they pay themselves? Do you know how much of donations actually goes to the needy? Not much. It seems a lot more than you, when it comes to local charities. It calls for someone pretty blinkered to miss the word local in a post, if you are old enough to recollect the policy was about replacing all manner of services with local volunteers. @ elegrande, that does not make sense do you want to elaborate. If you are strictly having a go at public sector workers the problem was not the increase in wages to parity with the private sector but the failure to deal with the pension issues and similar benefits and perks across all sectors of Central Government, Local Government, Public Sector functions and the many Quangos that still exist. That includes all those pig swilling Tory MPs benefiting from one of only two pension arrangements in the UK that is not impacted by HMRC rules. Edited by pefwin (21 Apr 2017 8.09pm)
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.