The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (237 Viewers)

[Astute]

so our growth forecast haven't been constantly downgraded? OK then.

Strangely enough Forbes used the latest numbers.

So how about rubbishing the whole way that they work things out?

 

---

[clint van damme]

Why is it?

A non biased well respected company that comes out with good news can't be proved wrong. Yet you try to. You either don't know how economics work or you are trying to prove them wrong.

so the Financial Times isn't a respected publication.
PCW aren't a non biased respected company?

UK Economic Outlook

 

[martcov]

Them & more especially the hidden faceless beaurocrats

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Who votes on major issues? MEPs, the countries‘ leaders, or the faceless bureaucrats?

 

[Astute]

I've said it before, I would love to see the economy flying. My son leaves school next spring and I would want as many opportunities as possible available to him but I am very pessimistic based on what I read and what I see. I'm just been a realist. I could be wrong and hope I am but it's very difficult to find anything to be optimistic about.

If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.

We were in the top 15 of all sections compared except for one. Political uncertainty came in at 25th.

Germany came in at 95th for red tape. A very good reason for companies not to invest there.

 

[clint van damme]

Strangely enough Forbes used the latest numbers.

So how about rubbishing the whole way that they work things out?

They didn't know that the UK has dropped from 5th to 6th biggest economy so I would suggest they didn't but I'm glad you have gleaned so much from one article that you can dismiss all others. If you think the economic outlook looks good then fair play to you. We'll know who was right this time next year. I hope it's you but I don't think it will be unfortunately.

 

[Astute]

so the Financial Times isn't a respected publication.
PCW aren't a non biased respected company?

UK Economic Outlook

So would you like to explain it in your own words?

They weighted it down because of Brexit. Yet they say we won't go into recession. The main numbers against us have been going down since 2010. What has this got to do with Brexit?

 

[clint van damme]

If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.

We were in the top 15 of all sections compared except for one. Political uncertainty came in at 25th.

Germany came in at 95th for red tape. A very good reason for companies not to invest there.

I have no opinions on Forbes.
But there are plenty of respected news sources and companies contradicting what they say and not many backing them up.
I have provided links from FT, PCW, CityAM and the Chancellors own projections which have down graded UK growth next year which was already performing badly compared to other G7 countries.

Why should Forbes article be considered more accurate than them?

 

[Astute]

They didn't know that the UK has dropped from 5th to 6th biggest economy so I would suggest they didn't but I'm glad you have gleaned so much from one article that you can dismiss all others. If you think the economic outlook looks good then fair play to you. We'll know who was right this time next year. I hope it's you but I don't think it will be unfortunately.

It depends how it is worked out. If PPP is used then we are down to 6th. This will always change.

 

[Astute]

I have no opinions on Forbes.
But there are plenty of respected news sources and companies contradicting what they say and not many backing them up.
I have provided links from FT, PCW, CityAM and the Chancellors own projections which have down graded UK growth next year which was already performing badly compared to other G7 countries.

Why should Forbes article be considered more accurate than them?

Couldn't see the FT article. PCW agreed with the Forbes numbers.

 

[clint van damme]

So would you like to explain it in your own words?

They weighted it down because of Brexit. Yet they say we won't go into recession. The main numbers against us have been going down since 2010. What has this got to do with Brexit?

what are you talking about, I haven't mentioned Brexit and even asked why you had mentioned remain voters in post 11286.
Our growth forecasts are the lowest, (or it may be 2nd lowest), in the G7, that doesn't mean we are going into recession which is why I haven't mentioned it so I'm not sure why you have. Stop talking us down!!

 

[martcov]

Have you never heard of Forbes before?

Or did you read it and not want it to be true?

It isn't just an article by one person. If you would have read it properly you will have noticed that many things are used. And the only minus for us was political uncertainty. They also mentioned the possibility of 10,000 banking job losses. The rest is what has been ignored by the remainers.

That London is a major financial centre and that with life style are major plus points for Forbes has not been ignored by remainers. In fact, London wants to keep things as they are as being in the EU is a significant benefit.

Forbes didn’t dwell on the rest of the country and did mention possible downsides such as potential loss of jobs in the City, the City being one of the major plus points, and attracting talented, well educated people from abroad.

Did you google where Germany is on the list?

 

[martcov]

Why is it?

A non biased well respected company that comes out with good news can't be proved wrong. Yet you try to. You either don't know how economics work or you are trying to prove them wrong.

New Zealand is Second on the list. It is not a list of how well the countries are doing. America was 23 and is now 11, mainly because of removal of red tape. Red tape is not necessarily bad for citizens. E.g. removing environmental regulations leads to a higher position in the list, but is bad for the population.

Despite that, 5 out of the top 10 places are EU countries- with faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and red tape. This shows the strength of the EU.

London was mentioned most in Forbes‘ report. That is what investors look at, it is not the conditions of living on a council estate in Coventry. Forbes is writing from the point of view of investment, not necessarily on what is good for the country as a whole.

Not the best gauge as to how well we are doing. GDP projections are more interesting. Or maybe employment and wage growth.

 

[martcov]

If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.

We were in the top 15 of all sections compared except for one. Political uncertainty came in at 25th.

Germany came in at 95th for red tape. A very good reason for companies not to invest there.

Forbes is a well respected company for investment. Gig jobs and zero hour contracts would be a plus point, as would privatising the NHS, for investors. The conservative government is also a plus point for investors.

They are not biased in favour of remain or leave. They do mention the potential job losses in the City as the City is important to their bias, which is reporting to investors.

It depends on who you think should benefit from Brexit. The rich elite, or the „British people“.

 

[Grendel]

Forecasts are exactly that - they are rarely that accurate especially beyond the next year.

Interestingly the EU autumn projections have been released and the show for next year identical growth virtually for France, Italy and ourselves if you factor in the margin for error.

The projection for Spain looks highly dubious to me

Autumn 2017 Economic Forecast

 

[Astute]

That London is a major financial centre and that with life style are major plus points for Forbes has not been ignored by remainers. In fact, London wants to keep things as they are as being in the EU is a significant benefit.

Forbes didn’t dwell on the rest of the country and did mention possible downsides such as potential loss of jobs in the City, the City being one of the major plus points, and attracting talented, well educated people from abroad.

Did you google where Germany is on the list?

They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.

Did you miss the news a couple of days ago where foreign banks won't need subsidiaries in the UK? But there again I suppose you don't know what this means.

 

[Astute]

New Zealand is Second on the list. It is not a list of how well the countries are doing. America was 23 and is now 11, mainly because of removal of red tape. Red tape is not necessarily bad for citizens. E.g. removing environmental regulations leads to a higher position in the list, but is bad for the population.

Despite that, 5 out of the top 10 places are EU countries- with faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and red tape. This shows the strength of the EU.

London was mentioned most in Forbes‘ report. That is what investors look at, it is not the conditions of living on a council estate in Coventry. Forbes is writing from the point of view of investment, not necessarily on what is good for the country as a whole.

Not the best gauge as to how well we are doing. GDP projections are more interesting. Or maybe employment and wage growth.

Clueless.

 

[Astute]

Forbes is a well respected company for investment. Gig jobs and zero hour contracts would be a plus point, as would privatising the NHS, for investors. The conservative government is also a plus point for investors.

They are not biased in favour of remain or leave. They do mention the potential job losses in the City as the City is important to their bias, which is reporting to investors.

It depends on who you think should benefit from Brexit. The rich elite, or the „British people“.

So you agree that they know what they are talking about but try to make out that they are wrong?

 

[Astute]

Forecasts are exactly that - they are rarely that accurate especially beyond the next year.

Interestingly the EU autumn projections have been released and the show for next year identical growth virtually for France, Italy and ourselves if you factor in the margin for error.

The projection for Spain looks highly dubious to me

Autumn 2017 Economic Forecast

The EU are biased to the EU of course. But some will call it the truth whilst trying to rubbish someone without bias.

This tells me all I need ro know.

 

[martcov]

So you agree that they know what they are talking about but try to make out that they are wrong?

No. I said they were right- for their readers.

 

[martcov]

Clueless.

Who is clueless? I explained what the report was about. You didn’t. You just posted it and said it proves your argument.

 

[martcov]

They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.

Did you miss the news a couple of days ago where foreign banks won't need subsidiaries in the UK? But there again I suppose you don't know what this means.

I’ll take a guess.. it means foreign banks won’t need subsidiaries in the UK? Are you now going to say that means there won’t be thousands of job losses in the UK? Against Forbes predictions? Or why have you mentioned that?

 

[martcov]

They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.

Did you miss the news a couple of days ago where foreign banks won't need subsidiaries in the UK? But there again I suppose you don't know what this means.

How is the German economy doing without being recommended by Forbes?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The catering union here want at least 8%, which our employers would pay, if the workers accept more flexibility, No one wants 4% in this trade. Too little. So it is all relative. Changing the direction based on a small minority will cause division for years to come, especially if things go bandy.

48 vs 52 suggests the division has already been created while we are in the EU - because they are trying to make things happen too quickly...like integration & expansion at the same time.

And the catering industry 8% (in Germany are we talking now?) BUT that flexibility is likely to come back & bite them on the ass is my guess.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Who votes on major issues? MEPs, the countries‘ leaders, or the faceless bureaucrats?

The faceless beaurocrats are/have the equivalent of parliamentary whips. I am sure you know how they influence

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

Who is clueless? I explained what the report was about. You didn’t. You just posted it and said it proves your argument.

What did you explain?

 

[Astute]

I’ll take a guess.. it means foreign banks won’t need subsidiaries in the UK? Are you now going to say that means there won’t be thousands of job losses in the UK? Against Forbes predictions? Or why have you mentioned that?

No. Try again.

So they won't need subsidiaries because they won't need subsidiaries?

It is all about how they are financed if you need a clue.

 

[Astute]

How is the German economy doing without being recommended by Forbes?

How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?

That is their point. Nobody is supposed to want to invest in the UK. But that is wrong.

 

[fernandopartridge]

How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?

That is their point. Nobody is supposed to want to invest in the UK. But that is wrong.

You don't half talk a load of shite at times. Germany isn't like the UK having sold off most of its prestige companies, it doesn't need investment from multinational external companies, it has plenty of its own.

 

[martcov]

What did you explain?

That it is about investment and not specifically about how the economy is doing. Which is why USA was 23. and is now only 11. although it is a strong economy.

Having less regulations and a labour Force with a lot of educated people counts for a lot in this report. Germany has more regulations which means they set higher standards for e.g. environment, employees rights, more control of the gig economy and no zero hours contracts. Might be good for employees and consumers, but considered restrictive for those investing short term.

New Zealand is not in our league as an economy, but because of privatisation of virtually everything it is good for investors. Some people might not think that privatisation is the best way of judging a country.

 

[martcov]

No. Try again.

So they won't need subsidiaries because they won't need subsidiaries?

It is all about how they are financed if you need a clue.

Who needs what financing, and what are you talking about? Why don’t you just enlighten me by telling me what point you are getting at?

 

[martcov]

The faceless beaurocrats are/have the equivalent of parliamentary whips. I am sure you know how they influence

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

No. Please explain. We have already had to replace 20 EU offices and are recruiting thousands of civil servants ( faceless bureaucrats) to replace the EU faceless bureaucrats that used to fulfill these functions for us. I would like to know what the cost of replacing EU bureaucrats with UK offices will be at the end of this.

 

[skybluetony176]

No. Please explain. We have already had to replace 20 EU offices and are recruiting thousands of civil servants ( faceless bureaucrats) to replace the EU faceless bureaucrats that used to fulfill these functions for us. I would like to know what the cost of replacing EU bureaucrats with UK offices will be at the end of this.

Seem to remember reading somewhere that brexit is going to create an estimated 8000 civil servent posts, or bureaucrats if you prefer. The EU employs about five times that for the whole of the EU which is of course a shared cost.

 

[martcov]

How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?

That is their point. Nobody is supposed to want to invest in the UK. But that is wrong.

They don’t care about what people are supposed to be investing in. Their report isn’t an answer to a specific situation. It is a list of countries which they consider good for a punt by investors. It is neutral, as you say, from a political angle. It is taken only from an investors point of view. Good for investors isn’t the main criterium for judging a country‘s economic performance, or the wellbeing of it‘s citizens. People investing isn’t negative. The reasons why could be negative for the working man though.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

No. Please explain. We have already had to replace 20 EU offices and are recruiting thousands of civil servants ( faceless bureaucrats) to replace the EU faceless bureaucrats that used to fulfill these functions for us. I would like to know what the cost of replacing EU bureaucrats with UK offices will be at the end of this.

Can't help with costings...but the faceless beaurocrats I am on about are those in & around the MEPS - bribing, bullying & cajoling them to do what the EU mandarins want

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

25th December. 24 hours. Please can we have an amnesty on this thread for just one day?

I'll take the day off being ashamed of my vote, and the remainers can have a day off being called snowflakes.