You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
None of the other countries that left the EU have had trouble accessing the single market, and it is unlikely this will happen with the UK as they make up such a substantial chunk of European trade. Further, the EU is already putting plans trade plans together.
It is extremely unlikely your credit rating will be downgraded.
Even being "under review" increases the borrowing costs the government has to pay. These extra costs come out of your taxes, meaning that there is less to spend on hospitals, schools, etc.. Your stupid vote did this.
True, but this "review" will only be in place until trade deals are negotiated, and it seems like all parties involved are very anxious to smooth this over quickly.
The pound has collapsed in the foreign exchange markets.
The pound fell 7% from 1.47 to 1.37 against the dollar, which is hardly the end of the world considering the amount of uncertainty in the markets over this vote. There have been far less significant political events which have shaken a nation's currency far more than this.
The likely collapse over time will be in the range of 20-30%.
No, this is how much people were saying the pound would fall. It didn't fall 20-30%, it fell 7%. This is a 7% collapse due to immediate market shock. It won't fall any lower in the near-term (at least not because of the Brexit, other non-related events may occur) because all the people who got scared already pulled out. It may fall lower in the long-term depending on how trade deals pan out, but as I mentioned above it is very likely that the UK will be able to negotiate decent trade deals as all parties involved are interested in making this happen.
This means that imported goods will increase in price by 25-42%. Your food bill is about to go up, as is your bill for most household applicances and other electronic goods.
If the pound actually fell 20-30%, yes this would be true. However, this is not likely to happen as the pound is not likely to fall 20-30%, as mentioned above.
England will now have to renegotiate all its trade deals.
True
Before, the UK was able to get a good deal, because we negotiated as part of the EU. The EU is a big market, so we were able to get good trade deals with China, Japan, the USA, etc., because these places wanted access to the big EU market.
Not exactly true. The UK was also constrained by EU trade deals, and this both worked to it's advantage and disadvantage. To think that the EU trade deals were all up-side and no down-side for the UK is disingenuous at best.
England, though, is much smaller. We will have to give away much more in trade negotiations to get access to these countries now, because when you've got a billion in population like China has, access to a piddly little market like England is unimportant and they can afford to play hardball with us (and they will).
First off, you obviously have no understanding of trade. Population size, country size, etc, have absolutely no effect on the outcome of a trade deal. Total output of goods can, but the biggest factor is what you are offering and at what price you choose to offer it. If the UK has goods that the world wants (and enough of them) and the world has goods to offer the UK, good trade deals will be negotiated. For example, the US has negotiated trade deals that are very advantageous to Mexico, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, and Vietnam (the last two of which were back-water, agricultural nations as little as 20 years ago and are now, through trade with the US, are on track to becoming the most advanced economies in the world). All of these countries are smaller than the UK and had far, far less to offer.
England's terms of trade are about to take a huge and permanent hit.
Extremely doubtful.
A preliminary "back of the envelope" calculation suggests that we will lose at least 0.3% per annum in economic growth from this. This doesn't sound much, but it adds up very quickly. It means that in future we will have less money to spend on essential public services than we otherwise would have. For example, after ten years we will have 3% less to spend. This means that instead of 100 nurses we will only have 97; instead of 100 firemen we will only have 97; instead of 100 teachers we will only have 97; and so on. Over time we will become poorer and poorer relative to the rest of Europe, because their terms of trade with the rest of the world will be better than ours.
Based on your actual understand of trade and economics, I'm guessing you just copied and pasted this from some news article. This is very unlikely as the UK is on track to negotiate trade deals with the EU already and will likely negotiate trade deals with other nations. Even if they aren't as good as before, the fact the the UK is not constrained by the EU will mean other deals can be made, and it will all balance out. Again, the situation outlined above is not likely to happen because, despite doom-sayer predictions, all parties involved are very anxious to trade with the UK.
As far as that last part (my emphasis) you do realize that the growth of every EU country has been terrible, and consistently declining, in the last few years, right? On the other hand, the UK has the higher growth rate than any EU country, and it has been growing. Even if economic growth in the UK were slower not that it's left the EU, the rest of Europe is literally already becoming poorer than the UK.
The Brexit campaign's key promise was that an extra £350 million per week would be available once we stopped paying it into the EU, and would be spent on hospitals. Within 24 hours of the vote, Farage has admitted that this promise was a lie and cannot be kept. Couldn't you tell he was fraud?
This is true. You won't be getting an extra 350 million per week. However, there will be extra money available to spend around.
There will be many, many, many more pieces of bad news.
Actually the immediate post-Brexit fallout wasn't nearly as bad as any of the doom-sayers predicted, which means it's very unlikely that any of their other predictions will come to fruition.
Can I have your e-mail address so in 10 years time I can send you a note of all the economic and social damage your stupid decision has led to, please?
As you can tell, I'm pretty angry. Mercifully, I know very few people who voted "Leave", but I know a few. For the rest of my life I intend to taunt them with periodic updates on the state of the English economy as it would have been without Brexit and what it actually is. Pretty nasty to remind people of their stupidity, but you really do deserve it. You were told, over and over again, that Brexit would be a disaster, by the smartest people in the country - all those scientists and economists and heads of industry and commerce - people who, you know, actually know their subject and have built years of expertise - but you had the arrogance to believe that you were smarter than they are. Let's see how things stand so far (after just two days):
Surely you must have realised, when the only people outside the country who wanted Brexit were a clown, a dictator, and a crypto-Nazi (Trump, Putin and Le Pen), that it was a bad idea? What the hell were you thinking? You took a great country, well integrated into the world economy, with a varied and effective workforce, and turned it into the future poor man of Europe. Your stupid vote did this.
You should be utterly ashamed of your arrant stupidity. For god's sake, the government itself sent you a document telling you which way to vote, just in case you couldn't work it out for yourself. Instead, you thought you were smarter than all those wise, experienced, educated people. You fucked up, and for the rest of your life I sincerely and with absolute conviction hope that you know, in your heart of hearts, that your vote contributed to the ruination of this country.
Of course, you won't really take this message to heart. How do I know? Because really stupid people, like you, don't admit that they were stupid. They make excuses and fatuous arguments to try and convince themselves that they were right after all. You'll do that, and in a couple of days you'll have forgotten this message. You won't face up to the calamity that you and the millions of stupid others like you have brought upon this beloved country. As England steadily declines relative to other countries you'll tell little stories to yourself of how "Brexit would have worked, but it was derailed by the elites" and how "we were betrayed after the referendum by the London ruling classes", because that's what stupid people do. You'll lie to yourself about who to blame as England lags further and further behind. You'll permanently abnegate all responsibility for the disaster that your stupidity has created. Your stupid mind will do this.
Do I need to point out the irony of someone who obviously can't spell or put together a coherent sentence telling someone else, who can clearly articulate themselves and lay out their arguments, that they aren't intelligent enough to make their own voting decision?
Thank you for your entertaining post. I hope you got as much fun from writing it as I got from laughing at it.
I spoke to a contact at a ratings agency yesterday (Saturday). The outlook is not good, and they certainly don't intend to wait for two years while new deals are negotiated.
Sterling is likely to fall significantly further as more information becomes available.
Your comment on the possibility of England's trade deals in future being as good as those of the UK in the EU seems to be empirically false (though I do grant that there is a continuing debate about this, and there are additional factors that need to be included; I was simplifying because the "headline" result is pretty clear, and the original poster probably wouldn't understand the more nuanced position).
I did the calculation on future losses of public services myself, and am reasonably sure that a 3% loss in public services over 10 years is correct on the basis of the data inputs. (I took average GDP growth rates over the period since the UK joined the EU as my base case, and took the new growth rate as 0.3% lower, based on historical figures for the UK's economic performance against that of other leading EU members. Then it's just a difference of two exponentials.)
All things considered I'm happy with my spelling and coherence. (And I'd prefer not to take spelling tips from someone who manages to mis-spell "Iliad" and "Al Qaeda"!)
I spoke to a contact at a ratings agency yesterday (Saturday). The outlook is not good, and they certainly don't intend to wait for two years while new deals are negotiated.
You're full of shit, you haven't spoken to a contact in the ratings agency, and obviously don't understand how credit ratings agencies operate. The don't make knee-jerk reactions to market fluctuations, and will not downgrade one of the world's largest economies until they have very good reason to do so. Their future rating will remain exactly the same until trade deals are negotiated (and it is very unlikely they will take 2 years, that's just how long the UK has until it's current trade deals with the EU expire, which you obviously don't understand).
Sterling is likely to fall significantly further as more information becomes available.
The Sterling didn't fall nearly as much as predicted and, if you know anything about how the market moves (which you obviously don't), you would know that after the initial, immediate market shock, following a massive political event like this, the market bounces back slightly, until it eventually stabilizes. The Sterling will likely rise through next week, though not to it's previous value.
Your comment on the possibility of England's trade deals in future being as good as those of the UK in the EU seems to be empirically false (though I do grant that there is a continuing debate about this, and there are additional factors that need to be included; I was simplifying because the "headline" result is pretty clear, and the original poster probably wouldn't understand the more nuanced position).
You say empirically false, but then say there is debate. You obviously don't understand the meaning of empiricism.
There is no "empirical" data to gauge whether trade deals will be negotiated as you can't measure something of that nature empirically. Again, you obviously don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. Further, the "headline" result is irrelevant, and there is no "nuanced position" to this issue. There are two camps, each with competing arguments: Those who think that the UK can negotiate advantageous trading deals with other countries and those who don't. And quite frankly, those who don't present some shitty arguments based around the fact that the UK is "small" (granted, there are some good arguments, I'm just saying that this is the bulk of them). This is the argument you presented and betrays your total lack of understand of how trade works. Countries that are much smaller than the UK, with economies that are far less sophisticated, and goods and services that are far less attractive to the world, have negotiated very good trade deals with much larger, more advanced, more powerful economies. The goods and services you have to offer in trade are far more relevant than almost anything else; size has little to do with it.
Additionally, to re-iterate, even if the UK can't negotiate deals that are as good as they were within the EU, they are now open to negotiate trade deals with non-European countries that they weren't previously allowed to engage in. Worried about the price of cars? Fuck the Germans, trade with Korea. Price of appliances getting to high? Trade with China. The remain camp constantly makes the "distance" argument as if it is somehow relevant to trade, but this is very obviously false and can be easily demonstrated by the fact that the US does most of it's trade with SE Asia and not Mexico and South America.
I did the calculation on future losses of public services myself, and am reasonably sure that a 3% loss in public services over 10 years is correct on the basis of the data inputs. (I took average GDP growth rates over the period since the UK joined the EU as my base case, and took the new growth rate as 0.3% lower, based on historical figures for the UK's economic performance against that of other leading EU members. Then it's just a difference of two exponentials.)
What? The way you calculated this makes no fucking sense as you have nothing to base any of this on. Any moron can pull unsubstantiated numbers out of their ass and make unsubstantiated predictions. This is just retarded in more ways than I can possibly explain.
All things considered I'm happy with my spelling and coherence. (And I'd prefer not to take spelling tips from someone who manages to mis-spell "Iliad" and "Al Qaeda"!)
Making typos isn't the same as sounding like a frothy 5-year-old throwing a fucking temper tantrum. Grow the fuck up.
[–]antiracist5 points
-5 points
0 points
(+0|-5)
ago
I once met an idiot mathematician who thought fucking CHANGE doesn't exist. He is totally right though because he's a mathematician.
"cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you ... and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site." -- @The_Only_Other
view the rest of the comments →
[–] The_Only_Other 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
True
Bullshit. You aren't "on-track" for anything. The downgrade depends on the trade deals the UK negotiates. Straight from Moody's:
"Moody's expects a negative impact on the economy unless the UK government manages to negotiate a trade deal that largely replicates its current access to the Single Market."
None of the other countries that left the EU have had trouble accessing the single market, and it is unlikely this will happen with the UK as they make up such a substantial chunk of European trade. Further, the EU is already putting plans trade plans together.
It is extremely unlikely your credit rating will be downgraded.
True, but this "review" will only be in place until trade deals are negotiated, and it seems like all parties involved are very anxious to smooth this over quickly.
The pound fell 7% from 1.47 to 1.37 against the dollar, which is hardly the end of the world considering the amount of uncertainty in the markets over this vote. There have been far less significant political events which have shaken a nation's currency far more than this.
No, this is how much people were saying the pound would fall. It didn't fall 20-30%, it fell 7%. This is a 7% collapse due to immediate market shock. It won't fall any lower in the near-term (at least not because of the Brexit, other non-related events may occur) because all the people who got scared already pulled out. It may fall lower in the long-term depending on how trade deals pan out, but as I mentioned above it is very likely that the UK will be able to negotiate decent trade deals as all parties involved are interested in making this happen.
If the pound actually fell 20-30%, yes this would be true. However, this is not likely to happen as the pound is not likely to fall 20-30%, as mentioned above.
True
Not exactly true. The UK was also constrained by EU trade deals, and this both worked to it's advantage and disadvantage. To think that the EU trade deals were all up-side and no down-side for the UK is disingenuous at best.
First off, you obviously have no understanding of trade. Population size, country size, etc, have absolutely no effect on the outcome of a trade deal. Total output of goods can, but the biggest factor is what you are offering and at what price you choose to offer it. If the UK has goods that the world wants (and enough of them) and the world has goods to offer the UK, good trade deals will be negotiated. For example, the US has negotiated trade deals that are very advantageous to Mexico, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, and Vietnam (the last two of which were back-water, agricultural nations as little as 20 years ago and are now, through trade with the US, are on track to becoming the most advanced economies in the world). All of these countries are smaller than the UK and had far, far less to offer.
Extremely doubtful.
Based on your actual understand of trade and economics, I'm guessing you just copied and pasted this from some news article. This is very unlikely as the UK is on track to negotiate trade deals with the EU already and will likely negotiate trade deals with other nations. Even if they aren't as good as before, the fact the the UK is not constrained by the EU will mean other deals can be made, and it will all balance out. Again, the situation outlined above is not likely to happen because, despite doom-sayer predictions, all parties involved are very anxious to trade with the UK.
As far as that last part (my emphasis) you do realize that the growth of every EU country has been terrible, and consistently declining, in the last few years, right? On the other hand, the UK has the higher growth rate than any EU country, and it has been growing. Even if economic growth in the UK were slower not that it's left the EU, the rest of Europe is literally already becoming poorer than the UK.
This is true. You won't be getting an extra 350 million per week. However, there will be extra money available to spend around.
Actually the immediate post-Brexit fallout wasn't nearly as bad as any of the doom-sayers predicted, which means it's very unlikely that any of their other predictions will come to fruition.
Do I need to point out the irony of someone who obviously can't spell or put together a coherent sentence telling someone else, who can clearly articulate themselves and lay out their arguments, that they aren't intelligent enough to make their own voting decision?
[–] TelescopiumHerscheli ago (edited ago)
Thank you for your entertaining post. I hope you got as much fun from writing it as I got from laughing at it.
I spoke to a contact at a ratings agency yesterday (Saturday). The outlook is not good, and they certainly don't intend to wait for two years while new deals are negotiated.
Sterling is likely to fall significantly further as more information becomes available.
Your comment on the possibility of England's trade deals in future being as good as those of the UK in the EU seems to be empirically false (though I do grant that there is a continuing debate about this, and there are additional factors that need to be included; I was simplifying because the "headline" result is pretty clear, and the original poster probably wouldn't understand the more nuanced position).
I did the calculation on future losses of public services myself, and am reasonably sure that a 3% loss in public services over 10 years is correct on the basis of the data inputs. (I took average GDP growth rates over the period since the UK joined the EU as my base case, and took the new growth rate as 0.3% lower, based on historical figures for the UK's economic performance against that of other leading EU members. Then it's just a difference of two exponentials.)
All things considered I'm happy with my spelling and coherence. (And I'd prefer not to take spelling tips from someone who manages to mis-spell "Iliad" and "Al Qaeda"!)
[–] The_Only_Other ago
You're full of shit, you haven't spoken to a contact in the ratings agency, and obviously don't understand how credit ratings agencies operate. The don't make knee-jerk reactions to market fluctuations, and will not downgrade one of the world's largest economies until they have very good reason to do so. Their future rating will remain exactly the same until trade deals are negotiated (and it is very unlikely they will take 2 years, that's just how long the UK has until it's current trade deals with the EU expire, which you obviously don't understand).
The Sterling didn't fall nearly as much as predicted and, if you know anything about how the market moves (which you obviously don't), you would know that after the initial, immediate market shock, following a massive political event like this, the market bounces back slightly, until it eventually stabilizes. The Sterling will likely rise through next week, though not to it's previous value.
You say empirically false, but then say there is debate. You obviously don't understand the meaning of empiricism.
There is no "empirical" data to gauge whether trade deals will be negotiated as you can't measure something of that nature empirically. Again, you obviously don't understand what the fuck you are talking about. Further, the "headline" result is irrelevant, and there is no "nuanced position" to this issue. There are two camps, each with competing arguments: Those who think that the UK can negotiate advantageous trading deals with other countries and those who don't. And quite frankly, those who don't present some shitty arguments based around the fact that the UK is "small" (granted, there are some good arguments, I'm just saying that this is the bulk of them). This is the argument you presented and betrays your total lack of understand of how trade works. Countries that are much smaller than the UK, with economies that are far less sophisticated, and goods and services that are far less attractive to the world, have negotiated very good trade deals with much larger, more advanced, more powerful economies. The goods and services you have to offer in trade are far more relevant than almost anything else; size has little to do with it.
Additionally, to re-iterate, even if the UK can't negotiate deals that are as good as they were within the EU, they are now open to negotiate trade deals with non-European countries that they weren't previously allowed to engage in. Worried about the price of cars? Fuck the Germans, trade with Korea. Price of appliances getting to high? Trade with China. The remain camp constantly makes the "distance" argument as if it is somehow relevant to trade, but this is very obviously false and can be easily demonstrated by the fact that the US does most of it's trade with SE Asia and not Mexico and South America.
What? The way you calculated this makes no fucking sense as you have nothing to base any of this on. Any moron can pull unsubstantiated numbers out of their ass and make unsubstantiated predictions. This is just retarded in more ways than I can possibly explain.
Making typos isn't the same as sounding like a frothy 5-year-old throwing a fucking temper tantrum. Grow the fuck up.
[–] antiracist 5 points -5 points 0 points (+0|-5) ago
I once met an idiot mathematician who thought fucking CHANGE doesn't exist. He is totally right though because he's a mathematician.
https://voat.co/v/atheism/comments/1064083/5315243
Archived that shit: http://archive.is/C9241