Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[simoh1490]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You can't even explain your own rubbish, can you?

Well, if you really want the methodology here it is, you won't understand the mechanics of it but you can always look at the pictures. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-barometer/

[aright]

17 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

How long from Mombasa to Turin by camel....since you're going to ignore the question that was asked and in turn ask irrelevant ones, we may as well make them truly irrelevant.

 

Would you rather have sex with a goat, and no one knows you did it, or not have sex with a goat and everyone thinks you did it? It was that sort of question. I didn't ignore it I just didn't feel qualified to answer . I am sure you are not of the same predisposition.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Well, if you really want the methodology here it is, you won't understand the mechanics of it but you can always look at the pictures. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-barometer/

Thanks for the reference. Finally.

 

I expect that you will be disappointed to find that I do understand it; although I would not necessarily agree with all of the methodology. Here's the whole thing from Y2K:

 

 

In the explanation and notes there is no mention of a par value, especially one of 100! In fact it says: the higher above zero the index is, the better off Britons are economically; the farther below zero, the worse off they are.

 

This is a simple enough chart and the reference (dotted line) is zero. I hope that you can grasp that one day?

 

To have to correct your mistakes all the time it getting tedious. You really must try better.

 

 

 

 

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Thanks for the reference. Finally.

 

I expect that you will be disappointed to find that I do understand it; although I would not necessarily agree with all of the methodology. Here's the whole thing from Y2K:

 

 

In the explanation and notes there is no mention of a par value, especially one of 100! In fact it says: the higher above zero the index is, the better off Britons are economically; the farther below zero, the worse off they are.

 

This is a simple enough chart and the reference (dotted line) is zero. I hope that you can grasp that one day?

 

To have to correct your mistakes all the time it getting tedious. You really must try better.

 

 

 

 

So you missed the part about the long term average or par, I'm not surprised, like I said you're not equipped for this debate, stick to changing tyres perhaps.

[talahtnut]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Sounds like he's very sick. Possibly not compos mentis?

Thats not fair, I believe he is very compost mentis.

Edited March 31, 2018 by talahtnut
addition

[aright]

4 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Thats not fair, I believe he is very compost mentis.

A slight spelling gaffe.

I think you meant compost mental

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

So you missed the part about the long term average or par, I'm not surprised, like I said you're not equipped for this debate, stick to changing tyres perhaps.

I read it all but what I quoted is relative to the main chart, which is what you showed in the first place. 

 

The word "par" is not mentioned at all in the article. The words " long-term average" are used in the paras below, which describe the meanings of +ve and -ve relative to the long-term average of each of the main series used to compute the barometer level. As below:

 

It is calculated using four series: the U.K. headline inflation rate, plus three proprietary Bloomberg Intelligence-created indicators tracking U.K. economic activity, employment and uncertainty. In all, 22 data sets are used to produce these four indicators. A positive reading indicates economic well-being is above the long-term average—calculated for the period of January 2000 to June 2016—and a negative reading means that it’s below the long-term average.

 

More specifically, each of the three proprietary indicators is calculated by bringing together the respective underlying series, using a technique known as Principal Components Analysis. All the series are then expressed in the same units—where a value of 0 is equivalent to the long-run average and values above or below 0 represent standard deviations (s.d.) from the mean. The same transformation is made to the CPI inflation series, where a value of 0 represents an inflation rate of 2 percent, which is equal to the Bank of England’s target.

 

All references are to zero. The only use of 100 is the common multiplier for the sum of the four indicators.

 

I'm only bothering with more on this to demonstrate to readers what a time-waster you are. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by nauseus

[aright]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm only bothering with more on this to demonstrate to readers what a time-waster you are. 

I agree. We shouldn't waste our time on people who don't deserve our attention.

[simoh1490]

5 minutes ago, aright said:

A slight spelling gaffe.

I think you meant compost mental

I'm 100% cool if you guys want to attack the poster rather than the third party material that's posted, in fact I encourage you to keep doing so, if that turns you on. Doing that does nothing more than confirm your inability to debate relevant material on a sensible level and the wider audience sees that in spades, all of which does wonders for the credibility of the average Brexit supporters. And don't get me started on graphs, ignoring 99.9% of relevant content and focussing on the value of x-scales, puleeeeze! That might actually be interesting were it not for the source of the argument which makes it laughable.

[aright]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm 100% cool if you guys want to attack the poster rather than the third party material that's posted, in fact I encourage you to keep doing so, if that turns you on. Doing that does nothing more than confirm your inability to debate relevant material on a sensible level and the wider audience sees that in spades, all of which does wonders for the credibility of the average Brexit supporters. And don't get me started on graphs, ignoring 99.9% of relevant content and focussing on the value of x-scales, puleeeeze! That might actually be interesting were it not for the source of the argument which makes it laughable.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm 100% cool if you guys want to attack the poster rather than the third party material that's posted, in fact I encourage you to keep doing so, if that turns you on. Doing that does nothing more than confirm your inability to debate relevant material on a sensible level and the wider audience sees that in spades, all of which does wonders for the credibility of the average Brexit supporters. And don't get me started on graphs, ignoring 99.9% of relevant content and focussing on the value of x-scales, puleeeeze! That might actually be interesting were it not for the source of the argument which makes it laughable.

This par100 graph nonsense was started by you. It has now backfired. Even your limited fanbase is keeping well clear. 

 

Gosh, I'm late for happy hour. Cheers.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Brexiters don't care about finance and industry, for them it's all about getting control of their dole money

 

I am a Brexiteer and not only do I NOT get dole money, I never did.

 

I did what most people of my generation did.

 

I worked for my money.

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

 

I never got them either.

 

 

[simoh1490]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This par100 graph nonsense was started by you. It has now backfired. Even your limited fanbase is keeping well clear. 

 

Gosh, I'm late for happy hour. Cheers.

No, you aren't equipped to address any of the myriad of issues contained in the article so instead, you try to debate a non-Brexit topic by attacking the Bloomberg graph and debating things you don't understand. It's a great but very stale and predictable deflection tactic. Happy hour, don't you need to be over 16 to participate!

[aright]

9 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

No, you aren't equipped to address any of the myriad of issues contained in the article so instead, you try to debate a non-Brexit topic by attacking the Bloomberg graph and debating things you don't understand. It's a great but very stale and predictable deflection tactic. Happy hour, don't you need to be over 16 to participate!

I think we have a small noisy tantrum on our hands.

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, aright said:

I think we have a small noisy tantrum on our hands.

I think what we have is a very strong desire amongst many people who participate and view this thread, to change the foundations of the thread. The debate is about Brexit that's clear, the style of the debate though leaves much to be desired, simply it's not a debate as we know it, Jim! If the debate is going to disregard all third-party inputs from reliable and valid sources, that needs to be stated explicitly because that's exactly what's happening at present.

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Equally sad you can't spell weasel. Both Greece and the EU were quilty from the outset w.r.t. Euro. 

Not as sad as you not knowing how to spell guilty while correcting my spelling.

[aright]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Not as sad as you not knowing how to spell guilty while correcting my spelling.

Learn the language.

"Getting Quilty"......like sleeping in  bed together.

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Can anybody make any sense of simoh's metaphor?

Yes

[simoh1490]

"Learn the language.

"Getting Quilty"......like sleeping in  bed together."

 

Humourous of course, in part, but timing is everything. Significantly, I think that pretty much sums up the nature and worth of this "debate" as a semi-serious topic.

Edited March 31, 2018 by simoh1490

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I 'm almost certain you won't have clicked on the Bloomberg link I supplied earlier but really you should, it's a very well written piece that covers lots of different aspects of the economy and the things that are being talked about here.

Dundee cake is a famous traditional Scottish fruit cake with a rich flavour.[1][2]

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, aright said:

How many prominent Remainers in this thread wax lyrical about the delights of living in the EU as a significant issue then choose to live in Thailand.  I can think of more than two The only comparison I can see is both Government and Commission are unaccountable. 

Just got back from Beach Road  after a significant rain storm. Ah! The smell of raw sewage.

Don't even think of including me in that short list. I'm not actually chained in bondage here but if it wasn't for kids I'd be gone ?

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

You just mean that I don't say what you want me to say.

 

The trend is there but the x-scale is meaningless. Got a barometer for Greece?

Sorry to be a party pooper but the Y axis scale is undefined, the X axis is time. Now Bloomberg units/ratios or whatever are clearly a scalar measurement. They should define these. Showing movement about a central axis labelled 100 is fine but define the units.

 

Now this is a longstanding gripe of mine. Financial media should ALWAYS show the origin and scale graphs accordingly. How do they expect anyone, let alone Brexiters to understand W tf their graphical representation means otherwise? Use a Log plot if necessary. (Yes, not only beavers use logs!)

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Pound steady around 1.4 against  USD. Euro about 1.23 I think. 

 

Meanwhile the ECB crashes on with QE.

 

Not really my currencies though. I prefer doubloons.

 

 

1.40 and 1.14 to TWO DECIMAL PLACES according to XE mid points.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

No, you aren't equipped to address any of the myriad of issues contained in the article so instead, you try to debate a non-Brexit topic by attacking the Bloomberg graph and debating things you don't understand. It's a great but very stale and predictable deflection tactic. Happy hour, don't you need to be over 16 to participate!

Myriad of issues now! Here is you first post directing us to your par100 graph~

 

An up to date look at how well the economy has been doing since 2015, there's a picture part way down, a graph under the heading, Brexit, an Economic Burden, : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-27/brexit-is-a-year-away-here-s-what-s-happening-in-the-u-k

 

I'm not attacking the graph but I bet you got that par 100 number from the data level (around 100) at the start of the plotted time range section given in the report!    

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

1.40 and 1.14 to TWO DECIMAL PLACES according to XE mid points.

1.14 is EUR / GBP not USD

Edited March 31, 2018 by nauseus

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry to be a party pooper but the Y axis scale is undefined, the X axis is time. Now Bloomberg units/ratios or whatever are clearly a scalar measurement. They should define these. Showing movement about a central axis labelled 100 is fine but define the units.

 

Now this is a longstanding gripe of mine. Financial media should ALWAYS show the origin and scale graphs accordingly. How do they expect anyone, let alone Brexiters to understand W tf their graphical representation means otherwise? Use a Log plot if necessary. (Yes, not only beavers use logs!)

Poop accepted.  Got my X's and Y's confused. But have a closer look at the 19 year graph and what I have written. The reference is 0.

 

You can see the full "barometer" at 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-barometer/

 

When at the chart, select the "since 2000: tab.

 

The methodology is all better explained on this page.

 

The name Brexit Barometer must have been recently adopted, as the same source data is there from at least 2000.

Edited March 31, 2018 by nauseus

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Well, if you really want the methodology here it is, you won't understand the mechanics of it but you can always look at the pictures. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-barometer/

All good stuff! Nice they explain standard deviation! However, they do not define the units. As a pedant I would like to see that; maybe proprietary.

 

Again, I hate those plots with no origin. I guess you guys are used to them but they lose all context

Edited March 31, 2018 by Grouse

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Not as sad as you not knowing how to spell guilty while correcting my spelling.

Fair cop. Quilty as charged.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Thanks for the reference. Finally.

 

I expect that you will be disappointed to find that I do understand it; although I would not necessarily agree with all of the methodology. Here's the whole thing from Y2K:

 

 

In the explanation and notes there is no mention of a par value, especially one of 100! In fact it says: the higher above zero the index is, the better off Britons are economically; the farther below zero, the worse off they are.

 

This is a simple enough chart and the reference (dotted line) is zero. I hope that you can grasp that one day?

 

To have to correct your mistakes all the time it getting tedious. You really must try better.

 

 

 

 

Interesting plot

 

You can see the 2008/9 crisis and the Brexit vote crisis

 

The labels are confused (possibly intentionally)

 

Overall result is that, post Brexit, we are flatlining

 

It makes no difference using zero or 100 for a reference point (or 99 or -13!). It's just for ease of interpretation.

[Grouse]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

1.14 is EUR / GBP not USD

Of course. I thought that was inferred. Did you think it was 1.40?