UK Pound Dipping.

[chiang mai]

Storm clouds:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/u-k-economy-may-have-weakest-quarter-in-more-than-three-years

[billd766]

Storm clouds:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/u-k-economy-may-have-weakest-quarter-in-more-than-three-years

All this is the gloomy report. The glass half empty you get

May have grown less

Lower than expected

If confidence takes a hit

Heightened global uncertainty is likely to blame.

So if you look at it from the glass half full side

May not have grown less

Lower than expected by who?

If confidence doesn't take a hit

The world economies are ALL slowing not just the UK

The report is full of ifs, buts and maybes and just the sort of thing that Cameron and the Remainers will seize on and gloss over the bits they don't like.

Edited April 11, 2016 by billd766

[chiang mai]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

[billd766]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Edited April 11, 2016 by billd766

[chiang mai]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

[billd766]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, as whilst I can write on subjects that I know about, what I know about finance can be written on the head of a pin with room to spare.

My responses here are just my thoughts and opinions on what is posted and links available for viewing.

I write about what I feel and some of the links have such a vague content, if, perhaps, maybe, that it makes me wonder why it was written in the first place as it gives no firm ideas of what will, maybe, perhaps will happen, or not.

It gives me little faith or confidence in the writer when he is sitting on the fence knowing more than me but unable or perhaps unwilling to make a stand.

[chiang mai]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, as whilst I can write on subjects that I know about, what I know about finance can be written on the head of a pin with room to spare.

My responses here are just my thoughts and opinions on what is posted and links available for viewing.

I write about what I feel and some of the links have such a vague content, if, perhaps, maybe, that it makes me wonder why it was written in the first place as it gives no firm ideas of what will, maybe, perhaps will happen, or not.

It gives me little faith or confidence in the writer when he is sitting on the fence knowing more than me but unable or perhaps unwilling to make a stand.

And that's fine with me.

The problem is that journalists who report on economic affairs in the West are scrutinised very very closely, they know they are at risk of prosecution if they omit the words if, may and could et al and the viewing public understand that also. So whilst the writer does know more than we do he about the subject matter, he/she is not allowed to express their opinion unless he/she states it is exactly that. Most readers of Bloomberg and the like don't buy subscriptions to read the opinions of lesser known writers and economists hence what gets delivered is this middle ground, partial fact, partial opinion and vague, useful nevertheless if you understand the rules, if nothing else it alerts you to the factors but not necessarily the answers, you have to deduce hose for yourself.

[nontabury]

Reporting on the economics of a country, the associated forecasts and risks is not a black and white affair, economists only have a limited series of points where the data is definitive. The rest of the time everyone is trying to assess and project based on estimates and probabilities and these get refined the closer we get to the issuance of definitive data.

So when it is reported that a particular area of analysis came in lower than expected it is presumed the reader understands that expectation comprised the previous analysis and report by the same body.

The word "if" denotes probable or likely risk and is worth highlighting because it would have been identified previously, it's not as though the "if" condition is a new item that nobody has ever identified before, it is known.

The word "may" is introduced because, as explained previously, the data is not at a definitive point hence it is not correct to say "has" or "is", it is used on the basis of probability.

I hope that little explanation helps aid your reading pleasure!

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, as whilst I can write on subjects that I know about, what I know about finance can be written on the head of a pin with room to spare.

My responses here are just my thoughts and opinions on what is posted and links available for viewing.

I write about what I feel and some of the links have such a vague content, if, perhaps, maybe, that it makes me wonder why it was written in the first place as it gives no firm ideas of what will, maybe, perhaps will happen, or not.

It gives me little faith or confidence in the writer when he is sitting on the fence knowing more than me but unable or perhaps unwilling to make a stand.

Is there such a person as an expert on foreign currency speculation?

What we do know is that the markets do not like uncertainty, couple that with the shenanigans of governments who will try to scare the gullible public into thinking that the end of the world will follow if we do not allow ourselves to be deceived, as was the case in 1975. Better to follow the experts in the late 90's who in their wisdom rejected all the prophet of doom if we did't join the Euro.

[Johnniey]

Couldn't have happened at a better time as I took some of the family to the UK

[chiang mai]

This mornings offering is full of fact:

"Professor Blanchard refuses to join the apocalyptic chorus on Brexit but advises the British people to enter these uncharted waters with open eyes. Divorce will not be a short shock followed by swift recovery.

“The cost of exiting will not be seamless, and the uncertainty will last for a very long time afterwards. Firms deciding whether to locate plant in the UK or in the Continent will wait. Investment will drop,” he said.

But the sky will not fall for the Gilts market. “Will financing be more difficult after Brexit? Will investors see the British government as more risky? I don’t think so,” he said.

Prof Blanchard has been one of the world’s top theoretical economists over the last quarter century and might have won the Nobel Prize by now if he had not been cajoled into IMF service by his fellow Frenchman, Dominique Strauss-Kahn".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/11/olivier-blanchard-eyes-ugly-end-game-for-japan-on-debt-spiral/

EDIT TO ADD: the rest of the article is very good, arguable we should all be watching Japan and not Brexit.

SECOND EDIT TO ADD: the following Brexit article from Roger Bootle is also very good and directly related. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/10/if-leaving-the-eu-is-a-leap-in-the-dark-then-staying-in-is-a-lea/

Edited April 11, 2016 by chiang mai

[chiang mai]

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, as whilst I can write on subjects that I know about, what I know about finance can be written on the head of a pin with room to spare.

My responses here are just my thoughts and opinions on what is posted and links available for viewing.

I write about what I feel and some of the links have such a vague content, if, perhaps, maybe, that it makes me wonder why it was written in the first place as it gives no firm ideas of what will, maybe, perhaps will happen, or not.

It gives me little faith or confidence in the writer when he is sitting on the fence knowing more than me but unable or perhaps unwilling to make a stand.

Is there such a person as an expert on foreign currency speculation?

What we do know is that the markets do not like uncertainty, couple that with the shenanigans of governments who will try to scare the gullible public into thinking that the end of the world will follow if we do not allow ourselves to be deceived, as was the case in 1975. Better to follow the experts in the late 90's who in their wisdom rejected all the prophet of doom if we did't join the Euro.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. The problem is not that a few people know a lot, it's more that the vast majority don't know anything thus the herd gets taken in by anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on the subject. But to answer the question directly, yes and Soros is one of them, there are however many many others.

[nontabury]

So basically they are hedging their bets by saying "if this, then that", if not this then something else.

They obviously know far more than I do, most people do, but that report doesn't say much to me other than well we think this may happen but it may not. If it does we were right but if it doesn't then something else happened and it wasn't our fault, but because we didn't factor it in it still wasn't our fault.

Edited by me for spelling and grammar mistakes

Bill, I know from our previous exchanges that you don't do modern economics well. Perhaps you can write for us an alternate article, bearing in mind you have to inform readers, mostly business and economics minded folks, of what the current and future picture looks like on on BREXIT AND you have to sell copy of your employer?

I await your submission with much trepidation.

Please don't hold your breath waiting, as whilst I can write on subjects that I know about, what I know about finance can be written on the head of a pin with room to spare.

My responses here are just my thoughts and opinions on what is posted and links available for viewing.

I write about what I feel and some of the links have such a vague content, if, perhaps, maybe, that it makes me wonder why it was written in the first place as it gives no firm ideas of what will, maybe, perhaps will happen, or not.

It gives me little faith or confidence in the writer when he is sitting on the fence knowing more than me but unable or perhaps unwilling to make a stand.

Is there such a person as an expert on foreign currency speculation?

What we do know is that the markets do not like uncertainty, couple that with the shenanigans of governments who will try to scare the gullible public into thinking that the end of the world will follow if we do not allow ourselves to be deceived, as was the case in 1975. Better to follow the experts in the late 90's who in their wisdom rejected all the prophet of doom if we did't join the Euro.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. The problem is not that a few people know a lot, it's more that the vast majority don't know anything thus the herd gets taken in by anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on the subject. But to answer the question directly, yes and Soros is one of them, there are however many many others.

Would the Soros you refer to,be the same George Soros who now says " the EU is now in danger of mortal collapse" ?

[chiang mai]

Indeed, the very same although the EU is not a currency and that's where he appears to be expert.

Edited April 13, 2016 by chiang mai

[nontabury]

Indeed, the very same although the EU is not a currency and that's where he appears to be expert.

He's a currency expert for the simple reason, he and his fellow bankers manipulated the markets, in order to make vast profits. They same will happen over the next few months, with the help of the central banks.

[james24]

Pound dipping = UK exports becoming more competitive; could be good in the long run...

[Orac]

Pound dipping = UK exports becoming more competitive; could be good in the long run...

For what is left of our manufacturing industry maybe but, under Thatcher particularly, our economy was shifted to service based with a strong emphasis on finance so any pick up in visible trade would almost certainly be offset by a reduction of our invisible trade with a potential huge effect if our financial services get shut out of the EU market.

[Apostate]

Hey guys

Just wondering why would Brexit make the pound drop ? I'm pretty green to economics but wouldn't the fact that the situation with economic refugees would not effect Britain as much if they were not part of the EU attract more investment ..?

Economic refugees benefit the economy - but still lots of Brits hate them because they're foreigners and an easy target to blame.

[nontabury]

Hey guys

Just wondering why would Brexit make the pound drop ? I'm pretty green to economics but wouldn't the fact that the situation with economic refugees would not effect Britain as much if they were not part of the EU attract more investment ..?

Economic refugees benefit the economy - but still lots of Brits hate them because they're foreigners and an easy target to blame.

Nothing to do with hating them, more to do with the knowledge that these economic refugees are undercutting and taking jobs away from the Brits, This of course does benefit the big international companies.

In addition of course some of these economic refugees do not want to integrate with the natives,and if the UK does vote to remain in,this problem will only grow.

[nontabury]

Hey guys

Just wondering why would Brexit make the pound drop ? I'm pretty green to economics but wouldn't the fact that the situation with economic refugees would not effect Britain as much if they were not part of the EU attract more investment ..?

Economic refugees benefit the economy - but still lots of Brits hate them because they're foreigners and an easy target to blame.

Nothing to do with hating them,more to do with the knowledge that these economic refugees are undercutting the wages and taking the jobs of ordinary Brits. However this does benefit the large international companies,consequently they are all for it.

Another aspect of economic refugees is that some are not prepared to integrate with the natives or their way of life. This problem will unfortunately only get worse if we remain in the EU.

[chiang mai]

The fact is the UK needs those economic refugees because it has insufficient manpower of its own to fill the jobs that need to be done.

And saying that those refugees, if that's what we're calling them, undercut the wages of ordinary Brits seems a bit odd. Did they simply walk up and say, "I'll do the job for two quid an hour less than a native", hardly, the fact they are willing to work for what ever they are being paid is hardly their fault for anything.

[nontabury]

Reply to post 137.

Theses economic refugees are not hated,what concerns the British people is that many of them are undercutting, and taking jobs away from the locals,unfortunately in the majority of cases, jobs that are at the bottom of the employment ladder. However this does of course enable the multinationals and their allies to make larger profits.

Another aspect of the economic refugees is that a number of them have absolutely no intentions of integrating with the native population,preferring to retain their own ways and customs.

[brianinbangkok]

The fact is the UK needs those economic refugees because it has insufficient manpower of its own to fill the jobs that need to be done.

And saying that those refugees, if that's what we're calling them, undercut the wages of ordinary Brits seems a bit odd. Did they simply walk up and say, "I'll do the job for two quid an hour less than a native", hardly, the fact they are willing to work for what ever they are being paid is hardly their fault for anything.

Yeah we need people who work and pay taxes , not thousands of uneducated muslims who will never work , pay taxes and be part of the western world.

65% of these immigrants have never worked after being in the country for 15 years (Netherlands).

They just cost money.

Let's import Chinese/Asians instead.

Like you said we need people to fill those jobs.

Leaving the EU will allow UK to control who is allowed in.

Edited April 16, 2016 by brianinbangkok

[chiang mai]

I don't follow the UK unemployment stats very closely so I don't know what the numbers are but I do read anecdotes where UK companies say they often prefer to hire these economic refugees because of their improved work ethic over their UK counterpart - whilst it's not good to generalise, to be honest, I find that entirely believable.

And when it comes to wages and how much people are paid/earn: perhaps wages would be more realistic if the current government were to slow/stop/reverse the trend in rising house prices which means it costs everyone more money to live, the fact that economic migrants are prepared to live more efficiently and to a lower standard than their Brit counterparts is a part of the answer - simply, the British worker demands a higher wage because he has to service huge amounts of debt which the economic migrants do not.

[sandyf]

Hey guys

Just wondering why would Brexit make the pound drop ? I'm pretty green to economics but wouldn't the fact that the situation with economic refugees would not effect Britain as much if they were not part of the EU attract more investment ..?

Economic refugees benefit the economy - but still lots of Brits hate them because they're foreigners and an easy target to blame.

There needs to be some clarification here between economic refugees and EU migrant workers.

A large number of migrants trying to get into the EU are economic refugees as opposed to genuine refugees, they have no grounds to enter EU or UK and are being refused. The Brexit would not change anything in this respect.

EU migrant workers are a different issue and can enter UK under the EU free movement rules and one of the main points of the leave campaign.

There has always been migrant workers in the UK and I do not see a Brexit making much difference, they will be allowed in as they were before the free movement ruling. I used to see a lot on the farms in East Anglia doing seasonal work the locals don't want to do.

[i claudius]

Hey guys

Just wondering why would Brexit make the pound drop ? I'm pretty green to economics but wouldn't the fact that the situation with economic refugees would not effect Britain as much if they were not part of the EU attract more investment ..?

Economic refugees benefit the economy - but still lots of Brits hate them because they're foreigners and an easy target to blame.

There needs to be some clarification here between economic refugees and EU migrant workers.

A large number of migrants trying to get into the EU are economic refugees as opposed to genuine refugees, they have no grounds to enter EU or UK and are being refused. The Brexit would not change anything in this respect.

EU migrant workers are a different issue and can enter UK under the EU free movement rules and one of the main points of the leave campaign.

There has always been migrant workers in the UK and I do not see a Brexit making much difference, they will be allowed in as they were before the free movement ruling. I used to see a lot on the farms in East Anglia doing seasonal work the locals don't want to do.

Yes a massive difference between lets say Polish workers coming over and working hard and the "economic migrants" we see daily on the tv ,from all the cesspits of the world who do not integrate , very few work in jobs that pay tax and the vast majority who just want the benifits that they can claim for them and their extended family .

[brianinbangkok]

The problem is that the EU is not refusing the economic refugees , they are letting them all in and are forcing the European countries to house them and feed them, once in they never leave the EU, if refused refugee status in one country they just move to the next.

There is no European outer border, EU is doing nothing at all except talk.

Leaving the EU would allow UK to change laws on immigrants and benefits , without free handhouts the attraction to get into the UK will be gone.

Then the UK can decide who is allowed in and I believe only those immigrants who actually want to work in UK will still want to come to UK.

Edited April 17, 2016 by brianinbangkok

[brianinbangkok]

But back to OP topic.

I believe a UK outside of EU will allow it to cope with the immigrant problems and allow it to make its own banking rules ,

and trade agreements , this will result in a stronger economy and result in a higher UK pound.

There is no way the European countries will stop trading with the UK.

Edited April 17, 2016 by brianinbangkok

[sandyf]

There is no way the European countries will stop trading with the UK.

It is illegal for companies to sell products in the EU that require certification and these products must be identified as being certified.

At the moment there are 206 entities in the UK that are EU registered 'notified bodies' that can issue such certification which is done under EU legislation.

In order to continue with acceptable certification, the UK will need to draw up new legislation in line with the existing EU legislation. That is not going to come cheap and it is not going to happen overnight.

Boris Johnston laughed about the EU ruling on vacuum cleaners, that's fair enough, you can make to any standard you want but you cannot expect to sell the product where you want. The bottom line is that if the new UK standards do not match the EU standards there will be no trade with Europe, or anywhere else.

The EU made it law for certain products to be manufactured to an acceptable standard, something the UK never had before. People criticise that legislation but are very quick to make use of it when it comes to compensation.

[BritManToo]

^^

The Chinese don't seem to have a problem selling their stuff in the EU.

And they make almost everything sold there. Did China join the EU while I wasn't looking?

[MartinL]

The EU made it law for certain products to be manufactured to an acceptable standard, something the UK never had before. People criticise that legislation but are very quick to make use of it when it comes to compensation.

British Standards regarding manufacture and usage of equipment and systems existed long before Britain's membership of the EU. Have you never heard of the British Standards Institution? Many of those BSs were the leading standards in the world at the time and that might also be true today, too. Manufacturers wanting to sell in Britain pre-EU had to meet those very exacting standards. No doubt many British Standards were used as a basis for the current European Standards.

Current European Standards might be (or might not be, in some cases) an improvement over British Standards of 40 years ago but that's just natural development, something that should be happening all the time.

To suggest Britain had no legislation making " ... it law for certain products to be manufactured to an acceptable standard ... " is absolute nonsense.

if you're talking about the 'merchantable quality' (I think that's the phrase that's used) legislation, I always remember my mum frequently taking things back to the shop because they were faulty, when I was a kid in the early 60s. Once again, the EU version of this is just a development of what existed in UK pre-EU, with a few more teeth.

Edited April 17, 2016 by MartinL