/ The plumetting pound

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Crewey-Rob on 07 Oct 2016
So what apart from foreign holidays is going to cost us more?

Presumably anything that's imported I guess? Oil for a start, putting the price of everything up?
icnoble on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:
Good for British exporters and share holders including pension schemes.
Post edited at 20:22
5
Shani - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to icnoble:

> Good for british exporters

Its a purely mechanistic response.
10
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Chill. Put on some Bob, have a smerk and a beer.
Pounds are for bankers;)
2
Crewey-Rob on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Chill. Put on some Bob, have a smerk and a beer.

> Pounds are for bankers;)

You're right! It's Friday night and there's no point fretting about stuff we've got no control over (it's a beer and a vape for me though lol)
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> You're right! It's Friday night and there's no point fretting about stuff we've got no control over (it's a beer and a vape for me though lol)

Well said. Vapes may cause 'popcorn lung' however, so I will stick to a cigar;)
Every tings gonna be alright;)
Lusk - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Plumetting Pound, who cares?
Apparently something happened in 2008 and I've ended up with a cheap mortgage for the last eight years.
3
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Plumetting Pound, who cares?

> Apparently something happened in 2008 and I've ended up with a cheap mortgage for the last eight years.

Yeah. Me too. I keep meeting these already rich people moaning like feck that their savings aren't growing. Feck them. We've still got a roof !
9
Dax H - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Yeah. Me too. I keep meeting these already rich people moaning like feck that their savings aren't growing. Feck them. We've still got a roof !

Me three though I should get the cash next week for the house I am selling and will be clearing my mortgage on the house we live in so I'm changing my stance in a few days.
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dax H:

> Me three though I should get the cash next week for the house I am selling and will be clearing my mortgage on the house we live in so I'm changing my stance in a few days.

Don't forget your roots.
Buffalo soldier;)
Shani - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

> Its a purely mechanistic response.

Whoever down-voted this is an economic f*ckwit.
23
Loughan - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Don't forget your roots.

> Buffalo soldier;)

Stolen from Yorkshire... to the heart of the Financial District
Dax H - on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

I'm well rooted in my almost paid for ex council house on a sink estate.
Could do with re rooting to be honest but there is more to life than the value of your house.
1
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Loughan:

> Stolen from Yorkshire... to the heart of the Financial District

Yeah mon!
Dave the Rave on 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Dax H:

> I'm well rooted in my almost paid for ex council house on a sink estate.

> Could do with re rooting to be honest but there is more to life than the value of your house.

Chill ;)
I'm onto redemption song now.

Old pirates, yes, they rob I,
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit
( written prior to Maggie )


RomTheBear on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:
> So what apart from foreign holidays is going to cost us more?

> Presumably anything that's imported I guess? Oil for a start, putting the price of everything up?

I'm buying a house in euros from savings in pounds, so I'm getting totally f*cked. Brexit literally cost me tens of thousands of pounds already.

And yes, petrol prices, food prices, clothes etc etc ... big retailers have taken hedges on sterling so not too much effect for now, but they'll expire for most of them in spring.
Post edited at 00:22
7
John Stainforth - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

... and buyers!
Lusk - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm buying a house in euros from savings in pounds, so I'm getting totally f*cked. Brexit literally cost me tens of thousands of pounds already.

A drop in exchange rates and you're complaining about it's costing you 10s of thousands already and you wonder why loads of people are pissed off already?!
You're living in a completely different world to most of us. Are you just taking the piss?
27
RomTheBear on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:
> A drop in exchange rates and you're complaining about it's costing you 10s of thousands already and you wonder why loads of people are pissed off already?!

> You're living in a completely different world to most of us. Are you just taking the piss?

?? I'm not too sure what you're on about.
Post edited at 00:44
2
Lusk - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Most of us are trying to survive on ever decreasing income, you know, for example, zero pay rises in the last 8 years. Essentially we're x% worse off from y years ago, and you're whinging about your house costing z 1000s extra. Not much sympathy for you coming from us.
45
RomTheBear on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Most of us are trying to survive on ever decreasing income, you know, for example, zero pay rises in the last 8 years. Essentially we're x% worse off from y years ago, and you're whinging about your house costing z 1000s extra. Not much sympathy for you coming from us.

I'm not sure why you assume I've not been affected by the downturn of 8 years ago, in fact that one really f*cked me probably more than most, I had a student loan to repay in euros (which I had taken when the pound was at 1.5 Euro) with the pound at parity with Euro, I had to make up for it by working 60 hours weeks on a fairly low wage including 12 hours nights shifts, which really messed up my health at that time.
Thankfully since then it has gotten a lot better, mostly due to career progress and getting increasingly better jobs.
2
ClimberEd - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Most of us are trying to survive on ever decreasing income, you know, for example, zero pay rises in the last 8 years. Essentially we're x% worse off from y years ago, and you're whinging about your house costing z 1000s extra. Not much sympathy for you coming from us.

And your 'ever decreasing income' is going to decrease (relatively) even further in the real world as a result of Brexit.
Not much stuff is going to get cheaper in Britain in the near future.
4
Big Ger - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Working well for me, I just changed $300Au for quids at Tesco.
4
John Stainforth - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

He is not whinging and you will be hit badly too by the exchange rate induced inflation. It will be like a pay cut.
1
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I have to admit it's quite galling seeing you boast about profiting personally from the weak UK economic forecast (which is what the weak £ is) having been a cheerleader for what got us into this mess.

Those of us who weren't out of the country and hence protected from this are now poorer (all £ assets being worth less). Seems in quite poor taste for you to be gloating that you're richer as a result.
5
abseil on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I have to admit it's quite galling seeing you boast about profiting personally from the weak UK economic forecast (which is what the weak £ is) having been a cheerleader for what got us into this mess... Seems in quite poor taste for you to be gloating that you're richer as a result.

But Andy, wasn't he joking or at least speaking tongue in cheek? He talked about changing 300 AUS$ into pounds - the difference for this amount is only about 30 quid before and after Brexit.

Andy I'm not challenging your points, only wondering if he was only writing rather in jest.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Those of us who weren't out of the country and hence protected from this are now poorer (all £ assets being worth less). Seems in quite poor taste for you to be gloating that you're richer as a result.
>
Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency unless you are planning to buy something overseas with them?

3
flat eric - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to icnoble:

Only good for British exporters if they're not importing the parts first
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

(A) why shouldn't I be able to buy things anywhere in the world - what the hell difference does it make to you if I am buying something somewhere else; and

(B) we are a net importing nation. We buy lots of stuff that is priced in overseas currency, albeit we may pay a £ price in the shops (but they don't, so the overall price is still affected). Have you seen petrol prices lately?
2
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to abseil:

Maybe - but even if it's a tongue in cheek comment, that's still £30 more than I have benefited
9
summo on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
In reply to point A, In which case why not buy more UK produce. Unless of course your home is already a shrine to everything that is sourced, manufactured or at least assembled in the UK.
Post edited at 11:45
2
abseil on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Maybe - but even if it's a tongue in cheek comment, that's still £30 more than I have benefited

OK Andy - good point.

(PS 30 quid is a lot to me, anyway)
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Locally produced stuff is, in lots of cases, more expensive in the first place, and hasn't got cheaper (if anything, it may be becoming more expensive because any imported parts get more expensive when the £ drops; and fuel prices go up, increasing transport costs). Look at clothes, for example - you can buy clothes made in the UK but the costs are likely to be higher in the first place.

That's if there is even a local alternative available - cars, computers, smartphones and other consumer goods either aren't made here at all, or are only made here as part of international supply chains. Then there is petrol, which you will be indirectly paying for if you buy almost anything, let alone if you have a car yourself.

Besides, I don't disagree with buying things from around the world - I think that in nearly every way, globalisation makes us richer (the evidence of the trade wars in the 1930s certainly suggest so), so why would I want to?

I also think it's an irony that the brexiter chant of "export more" but buy more British stuff assumes that other countries will move towards more imports whilst we are pushing against them. Seems somewhat inconsistent.
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> (A) why shouldn't I be able to buy things anywhere in the world - what the hell difference does it make to you if I am buying something somewhere else; and

> (B) we are a net importing nation. We buy lots of stuff that is priced in overseas currency, albeit we may pay a £ price in the shops (but they don't, so the overall price is still affected). Have you seen petrol prices lately?

It makes no difference to me what you do with your money. I don't know why you inferred that it might.
I'm simply making an observation on how one might sensibly value one's assets. If one is a sterling area resident and the bulk of one's assets and liabilities are in sterling then the logical valuation is in sterling.

Your point "b" isn't about valuing assets. It is about the likely impact of a falling currency on domestic inflation.

The impact of the value of sterling assets on "buying things all over the world" is only relevant if you are going to monetise or borrow against those assets to buy things "all over the world". Otherwise what is relevant is the value of your sterling income relative to the cost of goods in foreign currencies.


2
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It makes no difference to me what you do with your money. I don't know why you inferred that it might.

It makes enough of a difference to you that you ask the question.

> I'm simply making an observation on how one might sensibly value one's assets. If one is a sterling area resident and the bulk of one's assets and liabilities are in sterling then the logical valuation is in sterling.

As I've said above, it isn't as simple as that.

> Your point "b" isn't about valuing assets. It is about the likely impact of a falling currency on domestic inflation.

If you can't see that the two are intrinsically connected, then we may struggle here.

> The impact of the value of sterling assets on "buying things all over the world" is only relevant if you are going to monetise or borrow against those assets to buy things "all over the world". Otherwise what is relevant is the value of your sterling income relative to the cost of goods in foreign currencies.

Agreed, but as I've said above, we live in an interconnected world where the price of things all over the world affects us. I sometimes buy things directly from other countries; I more often buy things in this country that have been imported so have been paid for in other currencies. Either way, the effect is the same - the value of my assets (including cash) is worth relatively less.
sebastian dangerfield on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The impact of the value of sterling assets on "buying things all over the world" is only relevant if you are going to monetise or borrow against those assets to buy things "all over the world". Otherwise what is relevant is the value of your sterling income relative to the cost of goods in foreign currencies.

well this is embarassing
1
Big Ger - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

A) I wasn't boasting, just recognising the fact.
B) As has been pointed out, $300 is a small sum so the gain is minimal.
C) When I came over last November I didn't get anything like the exchange rate I got yesterday, so it's all swings and roundabouts in the high echelons of my vast international currency exchange wheeling and dealings.
D) As I have no control over the exchange rates personally, should I only post when I lose out, just so you don't get too tearful about it all?
E) Since I have been an expat, the rates on my return journeys have varied between $1 = 32p and $1 = 68p, where in that continuum do you find appropriate?
F) Lastly, my return this time was unplanned and for very sad personal reason, why do you really begrudge me that little bit of fortune so badly?
6
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> It makes enough of a difference to you that you ask the question.
>
I didn't ask the question. Read it again.

> As I've said above, it isn't as simple as that.

> Either way, the effect is the same - the value of my assets (including cash) is worth relatively less.
>
You are not understanding the difference between assets and income or, in accounting terms "stock and flow". It's a basic accounting concept but if you are unfamiliar with it then I can understand your confusion.

Yes, your assets eg. a house, are worth less in dollars, but you aren't "spending" your assets in dollars or imports which were originally purchased in dollars. So it's not relevant.
It is true that the portion of any cash savings that is spent on imports or overseas does have a bearing.

But , generally one is spending income on things in dollars or imports orginally purchased in dollars.

To be honest I don't think you are interested in the difference so we're going nowhere.
1
Shani - on 09 Oct 2016
This is worth re-reading!

EU referendum: Soros warns of Brexit threat to pound and jobs - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36582026:
1
ukb shark - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

PP

Do you have a view at what level of devaluation would force an interest rate rise? Dollar parity?
summo on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

So what you are saying is that you are happy to keep buying things from overseas multi nationals, as you have convinced yourself you have no choice or it doesn't matter?

Yes, goods that are produced or sourced more in the UK may cost a little more anyway, but isn't that the point, to support local independent shops, local workers, keep what is left of UK manufacturing going etc..

Or like many buy everything online for the least amount possible, from anywhere in the world... Then blame others for the decline of the high street or UK manufacturing.
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> PP

> Do you have a view at what level of devaluation would force an interest rate rise? Dollar parity?

Not really. Remember that although it's painful if you're planning a trip overseas, to macroeconomists a weaker sterling, within reason, is not a bad thing. Countries all over the world have been trying to devalue their currencies to boost their exports. The UK has just done it by default. The BOE is targetting 2% inflation (currently 0.5%) so there is a decent cushion before the BOE starts worrying about inflation. On Friday the swaps markets were "forecasting" 3.5% inflation but that was probably an overreaction to short term moves.

Dollar parity would probably set off some alarm bells but until then the main impact is probably to stop a further cut in rates. A rise could tip the economy over.
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I did "read it again". You asked me why I care unless I'm purchasing something overseas. That is "asking the question", as I can't respond to the question you made without addressing the "unless".

I do see the point you are making about fixed assets v income. It seems you accept that we are poorer, though - and that both (a) that does matter as to immediate expenditure (I.e. income expenditure); and (b) the argument that it usually doesn't matter is only an assumption that I will not want to sell my assets abroad. I.e. you accept I'm poorer - you're just arguing it doesn't matter.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> I did "read it again". You asked me why I care unless I'm purchasing something overseas. That is "asking the question", as I can't respond to the question you made without addressing the "unless".
>
I didn't ask "why you care". I asked "Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency". I was simply ruling out an obvious and reasonable explanation so we could focus on any other explanations.


> I do see the point you are making about fixed assets v income. It seems you accept that we are poorer, though - and that both (a) that does matter as to immediate expenditure (I.e. income expenditure); and (b) the argument that it usually doesn't matter is only an assumption that I will not want to sell my assets abroad. I.e. you accept I'm poorer - you're just arguing it doesn't matter.

I accept (a). That was the point Is was trying to get over to you!

As for (b), have you left out a word? I'm not referring to anything about "selling my/your assets abroad".
Sheesh, You're not poorer in sterling terms.
Obviously you are "poorer"in foreign currency terms but that's exactly why I asked: why you would want to measure in foreign currency terms???
Post edited at 15:45
1
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> So what you are saying is that you are happy to keep buying things from overseas multi nationals, as you have convinced yourself you have no choice or it doesn't matter?

> Yes, goods that are produced or sourced more in the UK may cost a little more anyway, but isn't that the point, to support local independent shops, local workers, keep what is left of UK manufacturing going etc..

> Or like many buy everything online for the least amount possible, from anywhere in the world... Then blame others for the decline of the high street or UK manufacturing.

If you start prioritising British products that are more expensive and of lesser quality than a foreign one, you're not doing the economy a favour, you're just artificiality supporting mediocrity. It's been tried before, it's called protectionism, and had a devastating effect on UK productivity.

Fair competition has a better track record of delivering economic benefits than short sighted protectionism.
3
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> So what you are saying is that you are happy to keep buying things from overseas multi nationals, as you have convinced yourself you have no choice or it doesn't matter?

Up to a point, yes I am happy to buy things from overseas. That doesn't mean they're all from multinationals - e.g. foodstuffs, lots of which are produced by small cottage industries - but not do I accept I'm a bad person if I do buy something from a multinational. The world doesn't always boil down to black and white (overseas bad / British good). Why is it inherently bad to buy anything foreign?

> Yes, goods that are produced or sourced more in the UK may cost a little more anyway, but isn't that the point, to support local independent shops, local workers, keep what is left of UK manufacturing going etc..

It isn't always just a little more, and lots of people don't have the spare cash to always make that choice. Who are you to say that they're wrong? Besides, you're talking not just about going to local shops, but only buying things that are made in the UK (presumably from raw materials in the UK as well, otherwise materials costs are affected). It's utterly impractical, and I don't believe that you manage it either (you have computer access for one, which means a very high probability that is one imported item you're using).

> Or like many buy everything online for the least amount possible, from anywhere in the world...

Have I said I do that?

> Then blame others for the decline of the high street or UK manufacturing.

Where did I say that? I actually do a lot to support my local shops and do make a point of using local businesses where possible, but who are you to tell me I should be doing more in respect of the things I buy that are imported?



baron - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You should tell this to the EU.
L Ripley - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> I also think it's an irony that the brexiter chant of "export more" but buy more British stuff assumes that other countries will move towards more imports whilst we are pushing against them. Seems somewhat inconsistent.

I dare say this inconsistency is at the heart of most nationalism/nationally focused sentiments.
Post edited at 15:46
bonebag - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Be a bit careful what you say about folk with savings. Not all of them are rich. Some will have saved a redundancy package to see them through to another job or until they are fortunate to reach pension age.
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I'm sorry to hear you've had to come back due to bad circumstances. My point is not that I begrudge you anything, but in a thread where people had commented saying the changes had cost them money (which is the situation I'm also in) you "just pointing out" that you'd profited from something that has made the rest of us poorer seemed like gloating.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Big Ger - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Thanks for that, I will admit I didn't actually give a full perspective on the circumstances, so you weren't to know.

But as I say, over the years that I have been away the "value" of the $/quid has fluctuated between 32p and 68p. While the rapid change over the past weeks has been dramatic it doesn't fall outside historic changes.
Dave the Rave on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to bonebag:

> Be a bit careful what you say about folk with savings. Not all of them are rich. Some will have saved a redundancy package to see them through to another job or until they are fortunate to reach pension age.

Gulp.
summo on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I never said 'you' had said that I said 'many' do.

Either way, I just think where practical you should always support local business, it is a use or lose it option in many cases.

That trickle of consistent UK sales, might be what keeps many running through the currency turbulence, or adds to their economy of scale, which in turn makes their exports more competitive.

I see most of what you say as excuses for buying cheaper and from overseas. You buy say beef in the butchers, you keep a butcher, a local abattoir, a small truckers and a UK farmer in a job. The benefits of the same cut of meat from tescos is clearly going to be much less locally or even nationally felt.

Protectionist is blocking imports, you deliberately buying British even though it is not the cheapest isn't the same thing.

And, I didn't say you should do more, as I said your house might already be a shrine to UK production.
Post edited at 16:16
John Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

..or buying something from overseas!
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John Stainforth:

> ..or buying something from overseas!

What are you replying to?
John Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

"Dollar parity would probably set off some alarm bells" has to be one of the understatements of the week!
John Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Your much earlier comment: "Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency unless you are planning to buy something overseas with them?"
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John Stainforth:

> Your much earlier comment: "Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency unless you are planning to buy something overseas with them?"

I see.
John2 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

'Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency unless you are planning to buy something overseas with them?'

I have been thinking of buying a studio flat in Val d'Isere for the ski season, but my cause has not been helped by Brexit. When I was there last month one of the estate agents told me that they had several British clients who put down deposits on flats pre-Brexit, then were unable to complete post-Brexit and lost their deposits.
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I didn't ask "why you care". I asked "Why would you be measuring the value of your sterling assets in a foreign currency". I was simply ruling out an obvious and reasonable explanation so we could focus on any other explanations.

> I accept (a). That was the point Is was trying to get over to you!

> As for (b), have you left out a word? I'm not referring to anything about "selling my/your assets abroad".

> Sheesh, You're not poorer in sterling terms.

> Obviously you are "poorer"in foreign currency terms but that's exactly why I asked: why you would want to measure in foreign currency terms???

Why wouldn't you ? It really depends on what you spend you money on, but most households will spend a significant part of their income on imported goods or on good affected by the price of imported raw materials.
As a rule of thumb a typical household will see their real spending power reduced by 2/3% for every 10% fall in the pound so it's quite significant. Even more so if the fall is sustained, instead of a temporary adjustment.
Post edited at 17:24
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why wouldn't you ? It really depends on what you spend you money on, but most households will spend a significant part of their income
>

Exactly. Their income, not their assets.

RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Exactly. Their income, not their assets.

?? When the value of a currency falls, the value of all assets denominated in that currency fall as well.
Post edited at 17:47
2
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

You've already qualified your statement to "where practical". That alone makes a huge difference - it isn't practical in lots of cases! One of the main points is that you can't shrug off currency fluctuations by saying "well buy more UK stuff then" (which you were saying upthread) when in lots of cases it isn't practical or even possible.

Food is one area where I think that the arguments can be stronger for buying locally, partly because the choice is more often there, but also because there is more of an environmental impact of shipping perishable goods. But also, its one of those where your foreign multinational / local business divide can fall down. A lot of the imported food I buy is stuff like cheese, charcuterie or wine, where I buy smaller amounts of nicer stuff that is produced in small quantities. The imported stuff is therefore also likely to be from a small business, just one that is overseas. Why does it matter more to keep a UK business up and running instead of those small overseas businesses? Why should the livelihood of one be more important than the other?
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> ?? When the value of a currency falls, the value of all assets denominated in that currency fall as well.

Christ.income ans assets are different things

Look. Ive been through it with Andy. Im not going to repeat it. If you dont understand or u disagree so be it.
4
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I do get the point you are trying to make. But it only applies if your assets are never to be realised and there is no chance you'll want to move overseas, or ever need to release value from your assets for you or others to live from. Those are quite big assumptions, which is why I don't think you can just shrug off the fact that assets are worth less if the £ devalues. Another way to put it would be to accept we have all become poorer, but argue that it isn't as bad as all that as lots of prices (i.e. those in £) have gone down too.

MG - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

But both now worth less for buying anything not in sterling, such as petrol! Most of us are poorer than last week or before June.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I do get the point you are trying to make. But it only applies if your assets are never to be realised and there is no chance you'll want to move overseas, or ever need to release value from your assets for you or others to live from.
>
As I implied in my first post (and later said explicitly) and you objected that I was prying into your private affairs!!
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Christ.income ans assets are different things

Yes of course, and ?

> Look. Ive been through it with Andy. Im not going to repeat it. If you dont understand or u disagree so be it.

Do you disagree that the value of an asset denominated in pound falls in value when the value of the pound falls ? Odd.
Post edited at 18:28
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> But both now worth less for buying anything not in sterling, such as petrol! Most of us are poorer than last week or before June.

Your a sensible bloke. Read through the exchange. It was a straightforward point about whether sterling assets should be valued in sterling or in foreign currency terms and the caveats have all been covered. If people want to devalue their semi detached home in Edinburgh that they bought for retirement on the basis of what the could buy in Los Angeles this week then so be it.

Quite obviously the purchasing power of your income is going to go down for overseas purchases and if inflation increases (which it probably will) although as yet there hasn't been a move in inflation.
Post edited at 18:31
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Do you disagree that the value of an asset denominated in pound falls in value when the value of the pound falls ? Odd.
>
It doesn't fall in pounds. It falls in foreign currency terms. That is the problem I referred to at the beginning, with you in mind, which Andy got huffy about. Have you read the thread????
Post edited at 18:40
elliott92 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You really do hate this country/world/everybody in it at the moment don't you? Every time I read a post from you it is full of nothing but pessimistic, depressive, glass-half-empty drivel. Im not necessarily disagreeing with your points, but, cheer the f*ck up dude
10
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It doesn't fall in pounds in pounds

It does, given that value of those pounds is less.

I know what you are trying to say but it's nonsensical. It's like saying if I buy a gold coin and the next day the value of gold drops, the value of it has not decreased because "in gold terms" it's still the same amount of gold. That is correct but it tells you nothing about the value of it.
Post edited at 18:46
2
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to elliott92:
> You really do hate this country/world/everybody in it at the moment don't you? Every time I read a post from you it is full of nothing but pessimistic, depressive, glass-half-empty drivel. Im not necessarily disagreeing with your points, but, cheer the f*ck up dude

I love this country, it just that its government and a sizeable portion of its population seem to hate people like me. It wasn't always like this. Not sure why given the amount of tax I've paid without ever claiming anything, and integrating pretty well into society.

I'm quite optimistic about my future. Not too sure about the future of everybody else though.
Post edited at 18:58
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It does, given that value of those pounds is less.

> I know what you are trying to say but it's nonsensical.
>
No. It's a straightforward and logical concept and your analogy is not relevant to it.
If not then all investment advisors would send British investors their asset valuations in foreign currency terms.But they don't. Every investor has to have a benchmark currency in which they value their assets. People based in Britain, most of whose assets are in sterling will logically use sterling.

In a theoretical case, if gold were a liquid currency and most things that you bought and sold were in gold, as they are in sterling for a Brit, then the same would be true of the gold holder.

Knowing that you are right about everything in every way, always, I'm now going to love you and leave.
andyfallsoff - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Wasn't getting huffy about you prying - my point is just that there are so many circumstances in which the loss of value matters that I don't think you can just say "well unless you're selling up to buy overseas it doesn't matter", that's all. If you exclude whenever you'd use the money, then it never matters if you get poorer...

Anyway, I think you can sum up this debate between those of us who think the loss of value on an international level matters, and those who think that it doesn't. We all seem to agree that we are poorer by comparison to the rest of the world, but those who voted leave just seem to think it matters less. And now I'm going to go and drink some wine
Oceanrower - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Yesterday, for example, you had one house valued at £100,000. Assuming the pound dropped 10% overnight, today you have one house valued at £100,000.
1
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> But both now worth less for buying anything not in sterling, such as petrol! Most of us are poorer than last week or before June.

It's really odd that almost no-one is talking about the increased cost of petrol. Normally there would be an outcry. I think the reason must be, as a friend of mine has pointed out, that a lot of people voted for this and don't want to draw attention to it. And a lot of other things are going up too in the supermarkets, yet few people are commenting.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> Anyway, I think you can sum up this debate between those of us who think the loss of value on an international level matters, and those who think that it doesn't. >

No, I was making a simple point about normal asset valuation practice not about the broaderimpact of forex moves on purchasing power . Enjoy your wine.
Post edited at 19:23
Oceanrower - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I hadn't even noticed it had gone up! Round my way it's pretty steady at £1.11 ish
1
MG - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: well assume it hasn't yet been too affected by sterling's collapse last week, but it will be. Also oil is so volatile anyway, "small" currency movements are masked.

Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

>

> No, I was making a simple point about normal asset valuation practice not about the broaderimpact of forex moves on purchasing power . Enjoy your wine.

Very soon you'll be having to say 'Enjoy your English sparkling wine.'
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Situation a month ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/petrol-prices-set-soar-brexit-8853349

Sadly, most pundits are saying it is going to get a lot worse in the next week or so.
John2 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

You will surely admit that if our currency falls relative to every other currency in the world (Zimbabwe excluded), then we have become poorer as a nation and able to buy less foreign assets as individuals.

In 2009 the FT100 sank below 4000 and is now approaching record levels at 7044. The SAP500 in that period has progressed from below 700 to 2153. In 2009 the pound bought something like $1.36. now it buys $1.26. If we had all invested in American shares in 2009 we would be enormously wealthier in sterling terms.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:
> You will surely admit that if our currency falls relative to every other currency in the world (Zimbabwe excluded), then we have become poorer as a nation and able to buy less foreign assets as individuals.
>
Define poorer? Obviously we could buy less foreign assets as I stated at the beginning.

It's really straightforward. When a portfolio of assets is valued it has to be valued in a base currency for the purposes of consistency. For most Brits, most of whose assets, liabilities and spending is in sterling in makes sense to value things in sterling.

If one is very international or peripatetic one might decide to opt to base in dollars or possibly Euro but for most people this makes little sense. When sterling goes up against the dollar I doub't many people consider that they have got richer because their UK property is worth more dollars.

The broader impact of how a falling currency affects inflation and thus purchasing power and thus standards of living is a further topic.
Post edited at 19:47
Shani - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Yesterday, for example, you had one house valued at £100,000. Assuming the pound dropped 10% overnight, today you have one house valued at £100,000.

Add a nought or two to that house price and think about the London property market.....
MG - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Define poorer?

Can buy less stuff. Lower standard of living isn't "a further topic", it's what matters! Personally I am unlikely to go alpine climbing inSwitzelrand next year, for example, as a result of this.

RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Yesterday, for example, you had one house valued at £100,000. Assuming the pound dropped 10% overnight, today you have one house valued at £100,000.

But those 100,000 are worth less.
4
John2 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I defined poorer earlier. I can't afford a studio in Val d'Isere.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Can buy less stuff. Lower standard of living isn't "a further topic", it's what matters! >
>
Yes, but it is not the point I raised.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

> I defined poorer earlier. I can't afford a studio in Val d'Isere.

Yes, and I started by pointing out that the move in currencies to UK asset values was relevant if you want to use your UK assets to buy foreign assets.
1
John2 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Moreover, if we'd all bought American equities in 2009 we'd be a great deal richer in both dollar and sterling terms.
Dax H - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Situation a month ago:


> Sadly, most pundits are saying it is going to get a lot worse in the next week or so.

Nothing to do with Opec agreeing to cut production last week to stimulate the price then?
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

> Moreover, if we'd all bought American equities in 2009 we'd be a great deal richer in both dollar and sterling terms.

So what? And if you bought Greek equities you'd be poorer in sterling and euro terms. It's got no relevance to the original point.
Do you feel poorer every time an asset class goes up in which you are not invested?!
3
John2 - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

'Do you feel poorer every time an asset class goes up in which you are not invested?! '

Of course not, but I do feel poorer when I can no longer afford a foreign property which I could have afforded a year ago.
1
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No. It's a straightforward and logical concept and your analogy is not relevant to it.

> If not then all investment advisors would send British investors their asset valuations in foreign currency terms.But they don't. Every investor has to have a benchmark currency in which they value their assets. People based in Britain, most of whose assets are in sterling will logically use sterling.

The fact that assets will be valuated in a benchmark currency changes absolutely nothing.

> In a theoretical case, if gold were a liquid currency and most things that you bought and sold were in gold, as they are in sterling for a Brit,
then the same would be true of the gold holder.

No, it absolutely wouldn't, in that theoretical example, if gold dropped in value - presumably because there is suddenly more gold around, or suddenly less of the stuff that gold buys around - your gold coin would buy less stuff.

There is a reason why foreign investors are snapping up non-commercial property around London at the moment: they suddenly became cheaper.

1
Jim Fraser - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

The pound's dollar value has now dropped to half of what it was during my teens. Well done Leave voters. Well done Tory voters. What's it like to be thick as f3ck?
6
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, it absolutely wouldn't, in that theoretical example, if gold dropped in value - presumably because there is suddenly more gold around, or suddenly less of the stuff that gold buys around - your gold coin would buy less stuff.
>
Byeee
4
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Byeee

Are you leaving us ?
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Are you leaving us ?

No sweetheart. I can't compete with your peerless knowledge and understanding. Either that or I'll tear my little remaining hair out. I'm leaving you.
5
arch - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> The pound's dollar value has now dropped to half of what it was during my teens. Well done Leave voters. Well done Tory voters. What's it like to be thick as f3ck?

Same as being a patronising tw@ I'd imagine...............
5
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No sweetheart. I can't compete with your peerless knowledge and understanding. Either that or I'll tear my little remaining hair out. I'm leaving you.

Listen, it's pretty easy to understand - and verify - that assets denominated in a currency become cheaper when the value of that currency drops - that's exactly what makes them more attractive to foreign buyers who have assets denominated in a relatively stronger currency.

Not sure what's so controversial about this.




baron - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:
My dad said there used to be four dollars to the pound when he was a lad.
Bloody Brexiters!
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Listen, it's pretty easy to understand - and verify - that assets denominated in a currency become cheaper when the value of that currency drops - that's exactly what makes them more attractive to foreign buyers who have assets denominated in a relatively stronger currency.
>
Yup, in the buyer's currency, like I've been saying for the past five hours.

Shall I send out a circular to the global investment community letting them know that their valuation practices have been wrong for the past 50 years? Can I give them your e mail address in case they need further guidance?
Post edited at 21:48
5
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yup, in the buyer's currency, like I've been saying for the past five hours.

> Shall I send out a circular to the global investment community letting them know that their valuation practices have been wrong for the past 50 years? Can I give them your e mail address in case they need further guidance?

I'm not sure in which world you live in, but having spent several years working for two of the biggest assets managers in the world, I can guarantee you that currency movement are crucial to the way they value assets - in fact it's a regulatory requirement. Maybe it's your email I should send them ?

1
Dave the Rave on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

> I defined poorer earlier. I can't afford a studio in Val d'Isere.

I can't afford a pint in Val d'isere
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm not sure in which world you live in, but having spent several years working for two of the biggest assets managers in the world, I can guarantee you that currency movement are crucial to the way they value assets -
>
Yep, as has been taken for granted through this whole thread. Well done, but I think they'll need the benefit of the rest of your knowledge to explain to them how to do it properly. Could be a nobel prize in it for you and I'll write the news flash for UKC...
10
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Yep, as has been taken for granted through this whole thread.

Except by you, oddly.

> Well done, but I think they'll need the benefit of the rest of your knowledge to explain to them how to do it properly. Could be a nobel prize in it for you and I'll write the news flash for UKC...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be condescending. A power thing maybe, not sure. Not very interesting anyway.
Post edited at 22:24
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm not sure why you feel the need to be condescending. A power thing maybe, not sure. Not very interesting anyway.

Far be it for me to argue with you eternal rightness. I bow low.....
4
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Far be it for me to argue with you eternal rightness. I bow low.....

The most amusing is that you always end up arguing against your own arguments, not really against mine.
Post edited at 22:27
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> The most amusing is that you always end up arguing against your own arguments, not really against mine.

Lol. No, you just get it not your head that something was said that wasn't said and then argue against something that wasn't said. So obviously I agree.

I'll bite,just for larf.

A) You are Rom asset management. Your British client in the UK has given you 100k sterling from his sterling bank account in sterling to invest . You put it in a FTSE fund which rises 10%.

1)No currencies have moved.What do you tell him his investment is valued?

2)In the interim sterling has fallen 10% against the dollar but is unmoved against other currencies . What do you tell him his initial investment is valued ?

3)Sterling has fallen 10% against the Venezualan bolivar but is unmoved against other currencies. What do you tell him his initial investment is valued?

B) Your are the Bank of Rom. Your client holds £100k in his domestic account. Sterking falls 10% against the dollar. What does his bank account show?
Post edited at 22:41
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Actually, sine your an expert you'll get he answer to these as well.

1) You are Rom Asset management in New York and an American investor gives you $100k from from his $ bank account to invest in a FTSE (sterling denominated, unhedged) fund. The fund rises 10% in sterling terms.

1)No currencies have moved.What do you tell him his investment is valued?

2)In the interim sterling has fallen 10% against the dollar but is unmoved against other currencies . What do you tell him his initial investment is valued ?

3)Sterling risen 10% against the dollar. What do you tell him his initial investment is valued?


I'm having a little bet that you will come up with right answers which will just show that you did you wrong end of the stick thing again. Off to have a little bath now X
Post edited at 22:54
1
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lol. No, you just get it not your head that something was said that wasn't said and then argue against something that wasn't said. So obviously I agree.

> I'll bite,just for larf.

> You are Rom asset management. Your British client in the UK has given you £100k sterling from his sterling bank account in sterling to invest . You put it in a FTSE fund which rises 10%.

> 1)No currencies have moved.What do you tell him his investment is valued?

+10%

> 2)In the interim sterling has fallen 10% against the dollar but is unmoved against other currencies . What do you tell him his initial investment is valued ?

Still 110K GBP - which are now worth less in real terms because of the depreciation of Sterling against a major currency.

> 3)Sterling has fallen 10% against the Venezualan bolivar but is unmoved against other currencies. What do you tell him his initial investment is valued?

Still 110K GBP - which are now worth a tiny bit less because of the depreciation of Sterling against a minor currency - in this case the effect will be insignificant.
Post edited at 23:09
John Stainforth - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know what sort of investment community you are associated with, but I think it is incredibly naive to value your assets in Sterling terms alone. That is a sort of cop out, more or less equivalent to saying you don't care about exchange rate at all. Why not use many "metrics"? I value my assets against several currencies, but I always watch the dollar value very closely - the dollar being the world reserve currency; we are still in the "petroleum era" with petroleum being traded in dollars; and we are a massive net importer.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John Stainforth:
> I don't know what sort of investment community you are associated with, but I think it is incredibly naive to value your assets in Sterling terms alone. That is a sort of cop out, more or less equivalent to saying you don't care about exchange rate at all. Why not use many "metrics"? I value my assets against several currencies, but I always watch the dollar value very closely - the dollar being the world reserve currency; we are still in the "petroleum era" with petroleum being traded in dollars; and we are a massive net importer.

That's because you have lived for many years overseas meaning that you had or have assets and liabilities and a lifestyle that makes such an approach useful. So do I, but the vast majority of people settled long term in the UK are not in that situation so generally asset managers don't cater to it for standard clients
Post edited at 23:25
1
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John Stainforth:
> I don't know what sort of investment community you are associated with, but I think it is incredibly naive to value your assets in Sterling terms alone. That is a sort of cop out, more or less equivalent to saying you don't care about exchange rate at all. Why not use many "metrics"? I value my assets against several currencies, but I always watch the dollar value very closely - the dollar being the world reserve currency; we are still in the "petroleum era" with petroleum being traded in dollars; and we are a massive net importer.

Well in my experience they have standard currency baskets they will weigh different types of assets against. Not too sure about the exact model behind those.

But the analogy is the same for the man on the street, when the pound falls, his gbp denominated assets are typically worth less in real terms when pound falls against the major currency he is exposed to. It's a fairly simple argument but somehow PP keeps trying to find something wrong with it.
Post edited at 23:23
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> +10%

> Still 110K GBP - which are now worth less in real terms because of the depreciation of Sterling against a major currency.

> Still 110K GBP - which are now worth a tiny bit less because of the depreciation of Sterling against a minor currency - in this case the effect will be insignificant.

“In real terms” means the change in a financial number after correcting for the effect of inflation.
But never mind, it seems that Rom Asset management has made no adjustment for the movement in the value of the currency and you are thus misleading your client. You should be making an adjustment against a comprehensive weighted basket of global currencies and giving the client this information.
1
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well in my experience they have standard currency baskets they will weigh different types of assets against. Not too sure about the exact model behind those.

> But the analogy is the same for the man on the street, when the pound falls, his gbp denominated assets are typically worth less in real terms when pound falls against the major currency he is exposed to. It's a fairly simple argument but somehow PP keeps trying to find something wrong with it.
>
So which currency do you think the man in the British street is most exposed to?
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> “In real terms” means the change in a financial number after correcting for the effect of inflation.

You know exactly what I meant.

> But never mind, it seems that Rom Asset management has made no adjustment for the movement in the value of the currency and you are thus misleading your client. You should be making an adjustment against a comprehensive weighted basket of global currencies and giving the client this information.

Not necessarily in the U.K., to my knowledge.

2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I value my assets against several currencies, but I always watch the dollar value very closely - the dollar being the world reserve currency; we are still in the "petroleum era" with petroleum being traded in dollars; and we are a massive net importer.
>
Excluding your possible direct exposure to US property or whatever, what you seem to be describing is that you watch the currency not because it affects the valuation of your UK assets but because it might impact upon your purchasing power going forward. Obviously it's sensible to do that but it's a different point.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
The Dollar would be my bet.
Post edited at 23:33
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not necessarily in the U.K., to my knowledge.
>
So UK asset managers are content to value UK assets in sterling terms for their clients?

Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> The Dollar would be my bet.

So, a bloke has a £250k house, a £200k mortgage, £10k in savings and spends 90% of his income in the UK , the rest on a trip to Spain and his biggest currency exposure is in dollars?
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So UK asset managers are content to value UK assets in sterling terms for their clients?

They will give the valuation in any currency you want as long as you pay them to do it !

It doesn't really change anything to the fact that assets denominated in one currency are worth less when that currency drops.
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So which currency do you think the man in the British street is most exposed to?

Depends on the man and what he is doing, really, but unless he is some kind of hippie living off the land he will most likely be exposed to the exchange rate with USD and EUR, whether he wants it or not, I'd bet.
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They will give the valuation in any currency you want as long as you pay them to do it !

But the default is sterling and you know that. So we are agreed that asset managers generally value their British clients assets in sterling with no adjustments for currency movements (except of course when the clients hold non-sterling assets the value of which will change along with forex rates). As I have been saying all along.

> It doesn't really change anything to the fact that assets denominated in one currency are worth less when that currency drops.

You mean like I implied in my OP and said explicitly at 13.17 "Yes, your assets eg. a house, are worth less in dollars,"? "

Good night.

2
RomTheBear on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But the default is sterling and you know that. So we are agreed that asset managers generally value their British clients assets in sterling with no adjustments for currency movements (except of course when the clients hold non-sterling assets the value of which will change along with forex rates). As I have been saying all along.

> You mean like I implied in my OP and said explicitly at 13.17 "Yes, your assets eg. a house, are worth less in dollars,"? "

So if you agreed all along, why so much drama, condescension, and sarcasm ? Sometimes, you could just say "I agree".
Post edited at 00:13
2
r0x0r.wolfo - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So, a bloke has a £250k house, a £200k mortgage, £10k in savings and spends 90% of his income in the UK , the rest on a trip to Spain and his biggest currency exposure is in dollars?

In terms of his income spent in the UK, yes. Obviously if the guy is spending a few grand directly on the euro for a holiday that obviously complicates things. However petrol is dollar based and as a result is rising quite quickly in the UK since brexit. So that's a increase on transport directly whilst also having a indirect effect on the cost of goods.

In terms of manufacturing, often goods/materials are frequently bought in dollars, clothing in particular will start to rise around next spring considerably. Most retailers have hedged their currencies to allow for volatility in the market but not for a sustained weak pound. Most hedge for around 6 months to a year.

Transport, food, clothes and energy will all increase due to weakening against the dollar. A lot of things we spend money on is linked in someway or another to the dollar, I'm sure you can think of more examples.
Post edited at 23:57
L Ripley - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

I agree,not forgetting that the UK currently uses access to the EU as something to trade with, which shall become something we shall lose once we leave, meaning a financial hit from that, and on the radio just now Frankfurt is likely to be (not be wouldn't be good business sense) considering making conditions more agreeable there for any businesses who might be considering leaving the UK.

Thanks to Brexit, it so far seems to amount to a plummeting pound and the prospect of businesses leaving, and imports becoming more expensive.

What are the good bits again...?
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Ripley:

> What are the good bits again...?

You won't have to click on that annoying cookie warning on every website !
aln - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Transport, food, clothes and energy will all increase

Shockeroonie

Jim Fraser - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> My dad said there used to be four dollars to the pound when he was a lad.

> Bloody Brexiters!

That goes back to the WW2 era when the pound was pegged at $4. And from that came calling a half-crown 'half a dollar'.

Post-war, there was a major devaluation. More in the sixties and then came floating currencies in 1973.
John Stainforth - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I am certainly not looking at the dollar value of the pound solely from an overseas perspective. I am also very concerned of the buying power of my pounds in the UK when buying foreign (i.e., most) goods.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:


> Why does it matter more to keep a UK business up and running instead of those small overseas businesses? Why should the livelihood of one be more important than the other?

because if that business fails then it is at least one more person potentially claiming support from the state, from your taxes etc.. that persons tax contribution was also adding to society around you and nationally. There is also the green argument, food miles etc.. then eventually when you have killed all the small businesses around you, you are left with Tescos etc... they'll now stock your Spanish oak smoked chorizo, only they drove the little shop owner down on price in return for buying their entire stock and the guy can barely keep himself going now.

1
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> because if that business fails then it is at least one more person potentially claiming support from the state, from your taxes etc.. that persons tax contribution was also adding to society around you and nationally.

If that business fails because it was uncompetitive / unproductive compared to a foreign competitor, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it makes space for another to come in and do better.

Shielding ourselves from fair foreign competition will do no good, it's been tried before and led to complacent managers and unreliable product from unproductive plants being brought to market.
Post edited at 07:02
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> If that business fails because it was uncompetitive / unproductive compared to a foreign competitor, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it makes space for another to come in and do better.

Or be replaced in the high street by yet another charity shop. There is always another country with vastly lower labour costs, work ethics... that could put just about any UK business out of business. It's a question of where people draw their line. Everyone complains about evil corporations, hiding taxes, zero hours etc... but it's doesn't seem to stop the same people using facebook, google, shopping on amazon, sports direct, starbucks... they don't seem to be struggling. In reality just like the liberal lefties, people say one thing, then generally do what suits them best or is cheapest.

Why doesn't the EU just accept TTIP, if EU businesses crash, surely it's just market forces and another more efficient company can step in and take their place? ;)

> Shielding ourselves from fair foreign competition will do no good, it's been tried before and led to complacent managers and unreliable product from unproductive plants being brought to market.

Buying products from shops which in effect employ your neighbours, spend money in your own neighbourhood, tax in your own economy, isn't shielding yourself though or some kind of protectionist economy. I would agree you buy local products because they also do the job they are meant to do etc... BL cars being the classic example of failing production at all levels.
Post edited at 07:13
1
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> Or be replaced in the high street by yet another charity shop. There is always another country with vastly lower labour costs, work ethics... that could put just about any UK business out of business.


That's why I insisted on fair competition. Hence the importance of having similar labour standard and product/service regulation with your competitors. You know, the stuff the single market does...

> Why doesn't the EU just accept TTIP, if EU businesses crash, surely it's just market forces and another more efficient company can step in and take their place? ;)

Well yes they should.

> Buying products from shops which in effect employ your neighbours, spend money in your own neighbourhood, tax in your own economy, isn't shielding yourself though or some kind of protectionist economy.

It is. To a certain extent companies selling locally will already have a huge advantage : they'll know their local market better than their competitors and shipping costs will be lower.
Post edited at 07:38
3
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> In terms of his income spent in the UK, yes. Obviously if the guy is spending a few grand directly on the euro for a holiday that obviously complicates things. However petrol is dollar based and as a result is rising quite quickly in the UK since brexit. So that's a increase on transport directly whilst also having a indirect effect on the cost of goods.
>
All your points are true, obviously, so he has an indirect exposure to the dollar. That's not in question. Why would you think that an indirect and complex exposure to the dollar is bigger than his very large direct exposure to the pound ?
2
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> So if you agreed all along, why so much drama, condescension, and sarcasm ? Sometimes, you could just say "I agree".

I offered to leave. To agree to disagree. I told you how right you were. You seemed to want me to stay. I've no idea why X
Post edited at 08:16
3
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I offered to leave. To agree to disagree.

I thought you agreed ? Wtf, you're impossible to follow.

RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> All your points are true, obviously, so he has an indirect exposure to the dollar. That's not in question. Why would you think that an indirect and complex exposure to the dollar is bigger than his very large direct exposure to the pound ?

I don't think he indicated anywhere that he thinks that.
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I thought you agreed ? Wtf, you're impossible to follow.

Because at that stage you appeared to be disagreeing. I therefore offered to leave it at that but you wouldn't . It took me a lot of wasted time to get you to realise you were agreeing.

I suspect you'd still not accept the difference between something's value falling in sterling terms and something's value falling in foreign currency terms but I can't be bothered to argue about it.
2
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don't think he indicated anywhere that he thinks that.

Me: So which currency do you think the man in the British street is most exposed to?

Him:The dollar would be my bet

Are you saying that this does indicate that he thinks the man's exposure to the dollar is bigger than his exposure to the pound?
1
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I suspect you'd still not accept the difference between something's value falling in sterling terms and something's value falling in foreign currency terms but I can't be bothered to argue about it.

I do accept that difference, I'm simply saying it's a meaningless one in an economy opened to foreign buyers.
If the price of the pound falls then the value on my assets in the U.K. have fallen on the world market, I'm therefore poorer.

Do you agree or not ?
Post edited at 08:40
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Me: So which currency do you think the man in the British street is most exposed to?

> Him:The dollar would be my bet

> Are you saying that this does indicate that he thinks the man's exposure to the dollar is bigger than his exposure to the pound?

I think everybody understood "foreign currency" in your question, if that's not what you meant - fair enough you're right.
Post edited at 08:45
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I do accept that difference, I'm simply saying it's a meaningless one in an economy opened to foreign buyers.
>
But you didn't
Me: It doesn't fall in pounds. It falls in foreign currency terms.
You: It does, given that value of those pounds is less. (18.44)

You utterly failed to acknowledge the point.

> If the price of the pound falls then the value on my assets in the U.K. have fallen on the world market, I'm therefore poorer.

> Do you agree or not ?

If you want to buy something on the world market, then obviously, as I implied in my OP and explicitly later "Obviously we could buy less foreign assets as I stated at the beginning."
Why are you going back over old ground?
Post edited at 08:57
3
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I think everybody understood "foreign currency" in your question, if that's not what you meant - fair enough you're right.

Why the hell would they understand "foreign currency" when the whole purpose of the question was to illustrate why people should generally value their assets in sterling???
It's no wonder you get into pointless arguments!!
2
BnB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The argument about asset valuations, while entertaining, builds on the untested assumption that GBP is doomed to devalue long term.

That may happen, but we're witnessing a knee-jerk market reaction to an intra-party conference speech, not the effects of post-Brexit trade tariffs.

This is politics, not economics, at work. In her speech, May sought to appease the hardest Leavers in her party, but a smart politician would do exactly that even if her ultimate intention were to concede at the last minute on freedom of movement in order to retain single market access. All politics is local, and this hard line keeps May's powder dry. It's worth noting that a truly calamitous set of market indicators during the period post Article 50 eases the way for soft Brexiters to prevail.

It's tactically astute and all the more so because it presents the firmest possible stance to the EU. Here I stand, prepared to trash our economy AND YOURS, to get what my people demand. I would think that the focus of May's speech is very worrying for the EU negotiators whose job isn't to eject the UK from the single market. It's to keep us in it. And doubly so for leaders of the EU nations, who see May offering her people the only thing they cannot provide. What fuel for their opponents!!

Finally, markets go up and down. There's no telling what the future holds and EUR, from which zone we import more goods than any other, isn't itself immune from Brexit, nor self-induced harm. Italy holds its constitutional referendum soon. Who's to say EUR will not fall further than GBP?

Meanwhile the UK might indeed make a good go of a new trading infrastructure. Disruption can be very beneficial and there no question that new trading partners are out there. Compare the populations of SE Asia to Europe and ponder a moment. We may see a two year slump for GBP turn into a 10 year high.

This thread is as panic-laden as others of its ilk. Take time instead to watch the game being played out.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But you didn't

> Me: It doesn't fall in pounds. It falls in foreign currency terms.

> You: It does, given that value of those pounds is less. (18.44)

> You utterly failed to acknowledge the point.

No, I'm simply saying the value of something depends to an extent on the value of the currency it is denominated in.
Not sure why you don't want acknowledge this.

> If you want to buy something on the world market, then obviously, as I implied in my OP and explicitly later "Obviously we could buy less foreign assets as I stated at the beginning."

No, it falls even if you don't intend to buy anything on the world market. On the eyes of everybody else outside of the uk : you're poorer than you were before.
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, I'm simply saying the value of something depends to an extent on the value of the currency it is denominated in.
>
ie. Its value in foreign currency terms. Why don't you just say "yes, I agree" instead of pretending you disagree?

> Not sure why you don't want acknowledge this.

> No, it falls even if you don't intend to buy anything on the world market. On the eyes of everybody else outside of the uk : you're poorer than you were before.

ie. Its value in foreign currency terms. Why don't you just say "yes, I agree" instead of pretending you disagree?




1
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to BnB:

> This thread is as panic-laden as others of its ilk. Take time instead to watch the game being played out.
>
Agreed, I think that May is basically confronting the EU leaders with the logic of their own stance: if you want to play hardball you leave us no choice but to have a "hard brexit" so we are preparing accordingly.

I do wonder of she has fallen for the false analysis that most leavers were motivated by concerns over immigration. Actually all the polls show that most leavers were motivated by concerns over democracy and sovereignty.

It should be possible to reassert sovereignty but to embrace so much of EU legislation and the concept of free movement of people that the quid pro quo would be to maintain access to the single market. It is the EU that is stopping this.



1
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> ie. Its value in foreign currency terms. Why don't you just say "yes, I agree" instead of pretending you disagree?

I agree. Do you agree that it falls even if I don't intend to buy anything on the world market ?


Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I agree. Do you agree that it falls even if I don't intend to buy anything on the world market ?
>
In foreign currency terms, yes, as I've been saying all along.

We are agreeing but you, for some bizarre reason, resist the standard terminology to describe what you are saying.
Post edited at 09:19
beardy mike - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

I just want to point out to those saying buy local, well it's not quite as simple as you're making out it is. What IS local? Maybe veg, maybe some meat, guys making furniture in a shed maybe - not really that much. Sure, buying from your local shop helps put food on the table for the owners of that shop, but when you start looking at domestic goods and manufactured products, even the ones produced in the U.K. will be made from parts from all over the world. That is the only way these products can be produced and to think you can flick a switch and start producing 100% in the U.K. is simply not possible. We don't have the expertise, the infrastructure, the raw materials or the investors to achieve such a thing. Retail is a minuscule part of our economy by comparison to other sectors which rely absolutely on trading in foreign currency. Sure, our manufactured goods will drop in comparison to foreign goods, but then the cost of producing them will go up. Simple as that. So whilst we can't put up price for our own domestic market, which in turn means we can't put it up abroad as we now live in a global trading society, we also must accept effectively a price hike in what it costs us to manufacture, and that sounds suspiciously like companies will make less profit, and therefore be unable to reinvest. That is not a good situation. Things are just not as simple as people like to make out - things are circular and interconnected. And it pervades all walks of life - even your plumber, electrician or chippy will pay more for their parts and materials, and they have to pass that along. So stop trying to score points based on this argument, it's a false argument.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> In foreign currency terms, yes, as I've been saying all along.

> We are agreeing but you, for some bizarre reason, resist the standard terminology to describe what you are saying.

What standard terminology ?

BnB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Europe's leaders will be very wary of the demands of their own populations for curbs on migration. Brexit opens the door to introducing measures that could be rolled out across Europe but which could be "blamed" on those pesky Brits. Hungary narrowly failed only last week to defy the EU on migration and more will follow them in that aim.
Post edited at 09:22
r0x0r.wolfo - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Why the hell would they understand "foreign currency" when the whole purpose of the question was to illustrate why people should generally value their assets in sterling???

> It's no wonder you get into pointless arguments!!

Sorry I've not read the entire thread which I believed to be about the plummeting pound [on the FX market]. Therefore I believed your question was relevant to the biggest exposure to currency other than the pound itself.

Of course assets valued in Sterling should be valued ... in Sterling.

RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Europe's leaders will be very wary of the demands of their own populations for curbs on migration. Brexit opens the door to introducing measures that could be rolled out across Europe but which could be "blamed" on those pesky Brits. Hungary narrowly failed only last week to defy the EU on migration and more will follow them in that aim.

I think mostly the issue is that accepting the uk's demand would risk unravelling the single market, that's overall a much bigger risk to their economy (and the global economy) than possibly losing some of their market share in the UK.
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What standard terminology ?

In "foreign currency terms"
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Sorry I've not read the entire thread
>

You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you'd followed my helpful advice to read the thread in the first place

> Of course assets valued in Sterling should be valued ... in Sterling.

Yes

RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> In "foreign currency terms"

Ok I think we agree on everything then.
My broader point is simply that there is little comfort in knowing that your assets are worth the same in Sterling term.
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Ok I think we agree on everything then.

> My broader point is simply that there is little comfort in knowing that your assets are worth the same in Sterling term.

Agreed
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Agreed

We've done it ! X
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

Your assumption is that all goods manufactured in the Uk use a large % of overseas sourced components.

In my case my uk manufactured goods source barely 5% of overseas components ( electronics)

The rest is pure Uk "added value".

Your point is only valid if the uk manufacturer has very low added value and the rest is sourced from outside the UK.

So your sweeping generalisation is basically wrong.
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

"Sorry I've not read the entire thread which I believed to be about the plummeting pound"

No, the thread title clearly states it's about the plumetting pound. Which I think is a unit of imperial measurement equal to a traditional punnet of 6 plums grown in Etting , France.
beardy mike - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh: Is that true? 5%? I'd like to see where that comes from. What about raw materials? I seem to remember something about port talbot recently ;0 Also why should eu based companies choose to keep manufacturing in the UK when their core business it in Euro. Even if the pound stays low it will be a ball ache and most likely more expensive. For example a friend of mine works for a company in the south west who manufacturers car parts. They have already lost a substantial part of their business by it being moved to plants in continental Europe because they were selling to European car manufacturers and the company decided it was more sensible for them to remove that section of their work. So they've effectively had their sales dramatically reduced already.
cap'nChino - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to icnoble:

> Good for British exporters and share holders including pension schemes.

Only for those that don't import good to make the exports.
Shani - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to cap'nChino:

> Only for those that don't import good to make the exports.

And with the caveat that BREXIT doesn't increase cross border administration and red tape....
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

As I said it all depends on your local added value.In my case its very high so the devaluation is a big plus.

You are making the assumption that all businesses have the same cost structure....they clearly do not.

Yes there are some manufacturing operations where its a problem. But not all.

So to make a sweeping generalisation is just not factually correct..
beardy mike - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh: OK fair enough. My point was that the idea that the pound is isolated from any external influences and therefore it just doesn't matter is wrong, that somehow we will never have to deal in any other currency because we buy local is daft. Somewhere along the line, whether it be materials, parts, etc. there is a cost associated with many products which is directly influenced by exchange rates.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

> OK fair enough. My point was that the idea that the pound is isolated from any external influences and therefore it just doesn't matter is wrong, that somehow we will never have to deal in any other currency because we buy local is daft. Somewhere along the line, whether it be materials, parts, etc. there is a cost associated with many products which is directly influenced by exchange rates.

One of the big impact often underestimated is the impact of the lower pound on the attractiveness of the country to highly skilled individual.
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

Agreed. But it varies from business to business. To see it has a detrimental effect all the time is clearly wrong. There are just as many positives. If you are a U.K. Tourist attraction then clearly it is positive.etc etc
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

"According to Eurostat data, single low-paid earners (50% of average wages) in the UK earned €21.1k after taxes and social security contributions in 2015, 24% more than the average in Germany, France and The Netherlands. That advantage is eliminated following the 20% depreciation of sterling against the euro at the moment compared to the 2015 average exchange rate . Adding the uncertainty about the future work permit status (and reflecting that higher social security contributions in continental European countries also bring entitlements), the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for EU migrants is drastically reduced compared to the alternatives. Weaker sterling may do more to reduce immigration than any immigration controls the UK government is planning"
Gordon Stainforth - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Agreed. But it varies from business to business. To see it has a detrimental effect all the time is clearly wrong. There are just as many positives. If you are a U.K. Tourist attraction then clearly it is positive.etc etc

... you seem to be conveniently ignoring the very detrimental effect that Brexit curbs will have on the UK leisure and tourism industry. Indeed, it's already having an effect, with pubs and hotels not being able to attract enough staff.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3794237/As-700-000-leisure-staff-face-Brexit-curbs-i...

neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I am not ignoring it, just stating there are also advantages to devaluation.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Yep, essentially we are reducing our purchasing power to reduce immigration. A bit of a weird strategy.
muppetfilter - on 10 Oct 2016

When I lived in North Wales the Hotels and Restaurants were staffed by local teenagers and Adults..... maybe they can have their jobs back now the migrants are heading for better wages elsewhere ?
Post edited at 12:19
3
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Downside to that argument is that there are job vacanices here. Are there the same level in Spain, France etc...........?

I agree that it may have an impact ( who knows what it will really be?), but only if there other jobs to go to in other European countries where migrants speak the language etc etc.

Not an easy one.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

> When I lived in North Wales the Hotels and Restaurants were staffed by local teenagers and Adults..... maybe they can have their jobs back now the migrants are heading for better wages elsewhere ?

Given that unemployment was already record low in Wales, they'd have to be leaving other (possibly better) jobs to take these, presumably.

Gordon Stainforth - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

I've stayed in hotels in Scotland, the Lake District and Snowdonia, where I've got into conversation with the managers and they've all said the same thing: they'd love to employ more local people, but they just cannot get enough who are reliable enough. The Lake District case was particularly shocking. On another occasion I stayed in a hotel in Snowdonia (I was giving a talk so fortunately didn't have to pay for it) that was run by a local, and sadly, the standard and service was frankly abysmal.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> I've stayed in hotels in Scotland, the Lake District and Snowdonia, where I've got into conversation with the managers and they've all said the same thing: they'd love to employ more local people, but they just cannot get enough who are reliable enough. The Lake District case was particularly shocking. On another occasion I stayed in a hotel in Snowdonia (I was giving a talk so fortunately didn't have to pay for it) that was run by a local, and sadly, the standard and service was frankly abysmal.

Look at the bright side, at least the tourists get an more "authentic" British experience ;-p

Even though this is anecdotal and a bit cliche, it illustrates the fact that the skills of U.K. workers are not always a good substitutes for foreign workers and vice versa - which most studies seem to indicate is the case.

I never thought it was a problem, the local youth through their education/culture/work ethics etc might be better suited to other jobs that migrants couldn't do as well - possibly better jobs - than those currently filled by foreign workers.
At the end of the day it's good thing if people are in jobs that are good a fit for them.
Post edited at 12:51
Ramblin dave - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I never thought it was a problem, the local youth through their education/culture/work ethics etc might be better suited to other jobs that migrants couldn't do as well - possibly better jobs - than those currently filled by foreign workers.

The other point is that a lot of tourism-related jobs are very seasonal, and a lot of the local youth might prefer a line of work that can keep them employed for more than two months a year.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

What I want to know is why it paid 24% more to pull pints in a Snowdonia guest house than it does in a Bavaria, Monaco or Amsterdam. Surely not just the FX?
GrahamD - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

> When I lived in North Wales the Hotels and Restaurants were staffed by local teenagers and Adults..... maybe they can have their jobs back now the migrants are heading for better wages elsewhere ?

Why did they give their jobs up in the first place ?
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> The other point is that a lot of tourism-related jobs are very seasonal, and a lot of the local youth might prefer a line of work that can keep them employed for more than two months a year.

exactly most locals or UK workers might want accommodation that is better than 3sqm windowless hotel backroom, or a static caravan in winter with 8 other people and in the tourist industry Monday is often their only off day (the only people out on a Monday night in many lakes towns). This lifestyle might suit some who want to work 'overseas' for a year or two, but not many locals are going to consider it as a long term option. So the only locals who take the work are below par etc.. hence Gordon's recent experience. The wages aren't great too.
Post edited at 13:09
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> ... you seem to be conveniently ignoring the very detrimental effect that Brexit curbs will have on the UK leisure and tourism industry. Indeed, it's already having an effect, with pubs and hotels not being able to attract enough staff.
>
What brexit curbs? The government has pretty much said that 80% of EU citizens residing in the UK have an automatic right to stay and that the rest will likely be given that right.

A falling sterling is obviously manna from heaven for the tourist industry.
Post edited at 13:29
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> What brexit curbs? The government has pretty much said that 80% of EU citizens residing in the UK have an automatic right to stay and the rest will likely be given that right.

No, they haven't. That's reportedly an info from a "private source" at the home office, leaked conveniently to the telegraph the day after the whole "name and shame" thing.
It has zero value, it depends on what the government will be prepared to do and what kind of settlement they get for British nationals in the EU.
Post edited at 13:38
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, they haven't. That's reportedly an info from a "private source" at the home office, leaked conveniently to the telegraph the day after the whole "name and shame" thing.

> It has zero value.

When you say "private source" you mean "several cabinet ministers" right?

PS.What would you like to bet it happens?

Anyway, what brexit curbs?
krikoman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

> When I lived in North Wales the Hotels and Restaurants were staffed by local teenagers and Adults..... maybe they can have their jobs back now the migrants are heading for better wages elsewhere ?

And we'll be back to shit service by people who don't give a f*ck

I can't wait.
3
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> exactly most locals or UK workers might want accommodation that is better than 3sqm windowless hotel backroom, or a static caravan in winter with 8 other people and in the tourist industry Monday is often their only off day (the only people out on a Monday night in many lakes towns). This lifestyle might suit some who want to work 'overseas' for a year or two, but not many locals are going to consider it as a long term option. So the only locals who take the work are below par etc.. hence Gordon's recent experience. The wages aren't great too.

Unemployment in Wales is record low, so supposedly they have found other better jobs.
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> When you say "private source" you mean "several cabinet ministers" right?

Wrong. None of the cabinet ministers have said that publicly in government to my knowledge. In fact they insisted that they can't guarantee it and it would be part of negotiations.
Post edited at 13:44
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> When you say "private source" you mean "several cabinet ministers" right?

> PS.What would you like to bet it happens?

I bet you a 100 quid it doesn't happen that all EU nationals currently resident legally in the U.K. will have their rights to stay guaranteed (provided we do stop freedom of movement).
Post edited at 13:48
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Maybe it will improve productivity as hotels etc will have to up their game to get the staff they need...its usually what happens. Maybe it will mean that the catering sector will start seriously training their staff.Who knows what could happen.
1
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Wrong. None of the cabinet ministers have said that publicly in government to my knowledge. In fact they insisted that they can't guarantee it and it would be part of negotiations.
>
Nice edit, you are getting confused again Rommy.

Let me help: there are several different points:

1) Who said it.
2) Whether they said it publicly
3) Whether they guaranteed it
4) Whether I claimed that they said it publicly or guaranteed it.

The answers are 1) According to the media it was "several cabinet ministers" not just a "private home office source"

2 and 3) No they didn't.

4) No I didn't


Do you agree?
Post edited at 13:55
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I bet you a 100 quid it doesn't happen that all EU nationals currently resident legally in the U.K. will have their rights to stay guaranteed (provided we do stop freedom of movement).

Make it £10. And lets say "legally resident on June 23rd" just to try and stop you wriggling.
How do I collect? You're going to be in Cyrus or somewhere aren't you. Maybe it would be more practical if you just handed it over now?
Post edited at 14:12
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Unemployment in Wales is record low, so supposedly they have found other better jobs.

or just left wales, gone to uni in England and never moved back, or if they did it was only after securing employment.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> And we'll be back to shit service by people who don't give a f*ck

pay peanuts, get mon....

1
Postmanpat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> And we'll be back to shit service by people who don't give a f*ck

>
Oi, where's your working class solidarity gone? Bloody metropolitan liberals.....
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Make it £10.

Not fun, but ok.

> And lets say "legally resident on June 23rd" just to try and stop you wriggling.

Sure.

> How do I collect? You're going to be in Cyrus or somewhere aren't you. Maybe it would be more practical if you just handed it over now?

PayPal if you like. Yes, I'm moving there in a month if all goes well.
1
krikoman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Oi, where's your working class solidarity gone? Bloody metropolitan liberals.....

It f*cked off with the xenophobes

2
Neil Williams - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Maybe it will improve productivity as hotels etc will have to up their game to get the staff they need

And their prices, too...
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Got a plum job managing assets for the Russians?
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> Got a plum job managing assets for the Russians?

Nah I don't speak Russian yet. But it looks like it will be the official language soon in Cyprus lol.
Technically I'll still be in the UK, though, my house is on MoD land ;-) I'm not really moving abroad, I'm just going to the "colonies" ;-)
Post edited at 15:41
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

Naturally. But then that may benefit those on low wages.........?

If we sort out low productivity in the UK then we maybe we can all benefit.

Its all linked.

Shani - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Low productivity is linked to low and negative interest rates. This promotes cautionary behaviour rather than the risk taking necessary for innovation.
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well , best of luck with your new venture
1
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Naturally. But then that may benefit those on low wages.........?

> If we sort out low productivity in the UK then we maybe we can all benefit.

Put up barriers to shield our workers and companies from international competition, yeah that's defo going to increase productivity ... (facepalm)
2
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Maybe both you and shani could look up a bit more info on low productivity in the Uk. Its far more complicated than that and you know it.The fact that companies do not invest here as its cheaper for them to employ people is well known.Its one of the reasons why there is low captial investment here ( despite it being cheap to borrow money)

Its hardly anything new and is well known....so yes ( facepalm)
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Well the reverse can be argued. The only way you can get decent returns is by being innovative etc. being cautionary means sticking the money in the bank and earning set FA.

its why people are investing in things like Funding Circle etc
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
> Maybe both you and shani could look up a bit more info on low productivity in the Uk. Its far more complicated than that and you know it.The fact that companies do not invest here as its cheaper for them to employ people is well known.Its one of the reasons why there is low captial investment here ( despite it being cheap to borrow money)

Nobody really has a clue as to why productivity in the U.K. is low, as far as I know.
But IMHO it has more to do with the financial sector taking a hit in 2008 and loose monetary policy and QE protecting unproductive workers.
Post edited at 16:34
1
Shani - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
> Well the reverse can be argued. The only way you can get decent returns is by being innovative etc. being cautionary means sticking the money in the bank and earning set FA.

> its why people are investing in things like Funding Circle etc

It might, but what we are seeing now on the ground seemingly bears out what i am saying:

http://bit.ly/2d2Q9ZJ
1
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Its a mixture of lots of things.But a low skilled poorly trained workforce is well recognised as one of them.

If companies and also the public sector upped their game because they had to, it could potentially be a boost to us all.

Its long term anyway.Low productivity has been around for years.

RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
> Its a mixture of lots of things.But a low skilled poorly trained workforce is well recognised as one of them.

> If companies and also the public sector upped their game because they had to, it could potentially be a boost to us all.

I don't think it's necessarily true that our workforce is low skilled and poorly trained.

> Its long term anyway.Low productivity has been around for years.

Yes. Even in times when we had low immigration.
It's an interesting topic - but a bit of a mistery, I could never find a satisfying theory.
Post edited at 17:02
Shani - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Its a mixture of lots of things.But a low skilled poorly trained workforce is well recognised as one of them.

> If companies and also the public sector upped their game because they had to, it could potentially be a boost to us all.

> Its long term anyway.Low productivity has been around for years.

Low productivity in the UK might be due to differences in how we measure productivity and collect the data. The big difference now is the unique ingredient of very low interest rates. Japan offer a precautionary tale...

You are right though, it is hugely complex. Not sure how we get out of it!
Ramblin dave - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:
> Low productivity in the UK might be due to differences in how we measure productivity and collect the data. The big difference now is the unique ingredient of very low interest rates. Japan offer a precautionary tale...

> You are right though, it is hugely complex. Not sure how we get out of it!

Bit of a simplistic answer, but maybe we could stay in the single market, and then invest the money that we save by not committing economic suicide in education and training?
Post edited at 17:00
1
neilh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Or maybe we could start restructuring training to produce the skills we need locally for a global market ...........
Post edited at 18:15
Shani - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Or maybe we could start restructuring training to produce the skills we need locally for a global market ...........

It's all going to take money for investment and sadly, naive political and media understanding of economics means the focus is still on immediate cutting of government costs even though this does not seem to have had the desired effect as of yet.....
krikoman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Or maybe we could start restructuring training to produce the skills we need locally for a global market ...........

Why did we ever need to stop in the first place?

Of course we should be training local people. The problem, and this is a massive generalisation, that a lot of British people aren't engaged or interested. I can look around the places I work ( I work in lots of different industries ) and the people who show initiative and keenness are the foreign workers.

Obviously, I'm using my wide brush there and there are also lots of good home grown staff too, proportionally though it's a no-brainer.

I lot of what I come across is the difference between, "we might as well do it now" and "It'll still be there tomorrow" type attitude.

It's not really about money or skill but more attitude, maybe we should have enthusiasm classes in schools.

1
cb294 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Your comparison will be suffering from severe selection bias. Looking at people who moved abroad for a job will always overrepresent the most eager, skilled, and motivated cohort.

Works just the same if I compare the UK PhD students at my institute here in Germany with their average German peers.

No doubt there are differences in productivity between countries, but comparing expats with their hosts won't be able to reveal these differences, a few exceptions aside.

CB
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to cb294:

Is that a good reason to encourage immigration, therefore - those who will come are (to an extent) self selecting as the more motivated?

Given some of the more motivated of your population may decide to leave to become the motivated migrant students elsewhere...
Neil Williams - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

I do dislike the race to the bottom - but increasing prices then offset increased wages and what you have is inflation. So it needs care.
Richard J - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Its long term anyway.Low productivity has been around for years.

I think there are two problems here, one long term and one much more recent. As you say, the UK has had low productivity compared to countries like Germany, France and the USA for at least 40 years.

The more recent problem, though, is that since the financial crisis UK productivity (already not brilliant) has flatlined. The UK's productivity performance in the last decade has been worse than either world war or the great depression. Other countries also saw their productivity suffer but not on this scale.
Richard J - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Nobody really has a clue as to why productivity in the U.K. is low, as far as I know.

> But IMHO it has more to do with the financial sector taking a hit in 2008 and loose monetary policy and QE protecting unproductive workers.

More than one cause, of course, but I think a big part of the problem was that measured productivity had been boosted by North Sea oil, which went into a decline around 2000, and by the financial services industry, whose productivity fell off a cliff in 2008. You could argue that sectors like manufacturing ended up shrinking too much due to the success of oil and financial services keeping the pound overvalued (what economists call Dutch disease).
icnoble on 11 Oct 2016
cb294 - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I guess it is definitely good between comparable countries, e.g. the UK and Germany. Between more unequal countries it is more difficult. Yes we want to encourage trade and partnership, but the risk of a brain drain is huge. IIRC more than two thirds of all nurses trained in subsaharan Africa using European money will leave their countries and work in Europe, mainly the UK and France, which is somewhat pointless. Same thing with Polish nurses and carers, who work in Germany and, to a lesser extent, the UK.

CB
neilh - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to cb294:

Assuming there are jobs for them to go to. Is not one of the issues that some of these countries train more nurses/doctors than they need. Thatis why Portugeuse nurses come here- there are no jobs for them at home.

Anyway you can equally argue that it might drive the NHS to reconfigure its services faster and more effectively.

Not an easy one to predict.

cb294 - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Difficult. Maybe the EU should spend more aid money on paying trained nurses in countries like Malawi, rather than training nurses who will then follow the demand and come to Europe? Hard to say, some countries down there get a significant part of their budget from expat workers transferring money to their families.

CB

john spence - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:
One good thing about brexit is that you can now get euros from poundland.
Big Ger - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I just changed $600 Au at one of those pawn shop places, far better rate than Tesco.

(Not a boast ;-) ...)
2
Toerag - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> exactly most locals or UK workers might want accommodation that is better than 3sqm windowless hotel backroom, or a static caravan in winter with 8 other people and in the tourist industry Monday is often their only off day (the only people out on a Monday night in many lakes towns). This lifestyle might suit some who want to work 'overseas' for a year or two, but not many locals are going to consider it as a long term option. So the only locals who take the work are below par etc.. hence Gordon's recent experience. The wages aren't great too.

Exactly. The seasonal workers here (Guernsey) come here because the minimum wage they earn here is worth more back home (Madeira/Latvia/eastern europe) and/or they want to learn English because they believe England / America is the land of milk and honey. Latvians work in greenhouses picking flowers and tomatoes for 6 months then go home and live like kings for the other 6. For non-intellectual young people in the UK there isn't really the incentive to work in Europe - which country do they choose to go to? Why learn a foreign language when all the Europeans under 40 learn English? Will they make any money?
Jim Fraser - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Richard J:
> More than one cause, of course, but I think a big part of the problem was that measured productivity had been boosted by North Sea oil, which went into a decline around 2000, and by the financial services industry, whose productivity fell off a cliff in 2008. You could argue that sectors like manufacturing ended up shrinking too much due to the success of oil and financial services keeping the pound overvalued (what economists call Dutch disease).

One fundamental is the abandonment of manufacturing and the associated design capability. We now have a country where hardly anyone understands the disciplines required to do these things effectively; least of all the government; and you cannot create a new manufacturing work-force overnight. If you have been teaching them that they can rely on house prices, cheap imports and derivative trading for 30 years then you are almost wasting your time.

China and Germany have demonstrated that manufacturing is still the world's economic fundamental. It took China 25 years to get to the point where it could dominate world manufacturing so you might estimate it would take us 10 to 15 years to get back where we were IF we had the will and determination. The long-held Japanese idea of moving toward the higher value economic activity doesn't mean everyone sits at home and plays the markets. It means while others are making our shelf brackets and bicycle frames, we are making the machine tools, aircraft, high-end cars and power generation systems.

Translation:
The pound is low because the country is run by stupid people and is barely worth sh1t.
Post edited at 20:42
2
krikoman - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> One fundamental is the abandonment of manufacturing and the associated design capability. We now have a country where hardly anyone understands the disciplines required to do these things effectively; least of all the government; and you cannot create a new manufacturing work-force overnight.

> Translation:

> The pound is low because the country is run by stupid people and is barely worth sh1t.

Al true add to that the fact you go to university and you're only guarantee is that you'll learn to live with debt.

The worst idea ever in the history of education was getting rid of the EITB, which gave people of aptitude a broad base of skills, replacing this with the "modern" apprenticeship has been worse than useless.
Cú Chullain - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:

Although it is true to say that the manufacturing share in terms of both employment and the UK's GDP has steadily fallen since the 1960s it’s somewhat hyperbolic to suggest that the UK has ‘abandoned’ manufacturing. From what I can gather it is a sector that still employs 2.5 million people and generates £365 billion in sales and accounts for about 12% of GDP. It’s the 11th Largest manufacturing nation in the world.

It’s also absurd to compare the UK manufacturing sector to that of a low cost economies such as China (or any Asian country), the UK was never going to compete with low end mass production of say toys, clothes, cheap electronics or heavy industries such as mining, steel and shipbuilding so has already been forced to move its emphasis to high value high end engineering such as aerospace, automotive, precision engineering, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, defence etc , sectors that the UK, despite what some would like to think, are actually pretty good at.

There is plenty of room for improvement though with scope for the sector to offer better entry level training opportunities, more R&D investments and greater government involvement in developing youngsters at school level to be better equipped to access the sector but to say that manufacturing has been abandoned is the sort of nonsense you read BTL in the Guardian.
GrahamD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:


> ...so has already been forced to move its emphasis to high value high end engineering such as aerospace, automotive, precision engineering, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, defence etc , sectors that the UK, despite what some would like to think, are actually pretty good at.

Unfortunately for us (now), these rely on recruiting the best brains from across Europe to complement the home grown talent. The UK is less attractive to them than it was. Not all 'EU migrants' are plumbers and fruit pickers !

andyfallsoff - on 12 Oct 2016

Interesting to note that the £ has picked up a bit this morning, and the commentary I have seen attributes this to Theresa May making a commitment to a commons debate on Art 50.

Who knew, operating as a parliamentary democracy rather than an elective dictatorship is viewed well by the markets!
Postmanpat on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to C£ Chullain:
> Although it is true to say that the manufacturing share in terms of both employment and the UK's GDP has steadily fallen since the 1960s it£s somewhat hyperbolic to suggest that the UK has £abandoned£ manufacturing. From what I can gather it is a sector that still employs 2.5 million people and generates £365 billion in sales and accounts for about 12% of GDP. It£s the 11th Largest manufacturing nation in the world.

>
Manufacturing output has actually grown since 1978, albeit more slowly than in most of the UK's peers. What has fallen is manufacturing employment (by about 60%) which is the result of productivity improvements (which would generally be regarded as "a good thing").

The fall in employment, combined with the huge growth of the service sector the corollary of which is the share of manufacturing to fall,has led to people to mistakenly believe that manufacturing has been "abandoned". As you say, it's completely barmy to regard the low end, high employment manufacturing sectors which have been the mainstay of China's economic growth as a model to return to, unless we want to match their wage levels.
Post edited at 10:53
1
Gordon Stainforth - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I can't resist an ironic smile when you tell us about something that's 'completely barmy' ;)
1
Richard J - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Obviously it's all a matter of degree - manufacturing hasn't been abandoned, aerospace and pharma are still strong (though the latter has structural problems of its own), and the resurgence of automotive in the last decade is very positive. The question is whether the manufacturing sector is big enough relative to the whole economy. Productivity improvements can account for some of the decrease in employment in manufacturing , though they don't account for the decreasing share of value added - currently 11% for the UK.

In addition, it isn't obvious that within that 11%, our manufacturing sector is particularly tilted towards the high value end. UK manufacturing's R&D investment is particularly low. In the context of the "Dutch disease" argument, one very telling statistic (quoted in the FT today) is that only 1.4% of the loans made in the UK were to manufacturers. After all, why would you invest in manufacturing if you could put the money in London property or some clever bit of financial engineering?
Toerag - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Toerag:
> Latvians work in greenhouses picking flowers and tomatoes for 6 months then go home and live like kings for the other 6.

Extra info gleaned from an interview on the radio this morning following proposals to change our minimum wage - one Latvian girl picking peppers said a week's wages here was equivalent to a month's in Latvia.
Dax H - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The worst idea ever in the history of education was getting rid of the EITB, which gave people of aptitude a broad base of skills, replacing this with the "modern" apprenticeship has been worse than useless.

I spent the first year of an apprenticeship at an EITB training center.
Over the last 8 years I have put 6 kids through apprenticeships and though the office based courses were a waste of time the mechanical ones were quite good.
The hands on side has been devalued a lot, the tolerances they work to now are massive compared to what I did but the academic side is far more involving than mine was.
Postmanpat on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> I can't resist an ironic smile when you tell us about something that's 'completely barmy' ;)

Why is that? Looking at your weird comment on the currency charts I might say the same!
Post edited at 16:11
5
Postmanpat on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Richard J:

> Obviously it's all a matter of degree - manufacturing hasn't been abandoned, aerospace and pharma are still strong (though the latter has structural problems of its own), and the resurgence of automotive in the last decade is very positive. The question is whether the manufacturing sector is big enough relative to the whole economy. Productivity improvements can account for some of the decrease in employment in manufacturing , though they don't account for the decreasing share of value added - currently 11% for the UK.
>
Yes, I don't dispute that. UK manufacturing perfomance is suboptimal, but I dispute the off repeated fallacy that it is virtually dead.
Shani - on 12 Oct 2016
Looking at Sterling today, one or two commentators have opined that if Labour were in power rather than the Conservatives the media wojld be calling this "Labour's Currency Crisis!"

ukb shark - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Like you say the manufacture of high volume / low margin products / medium to long lead time products were off shored years ago quite often with new factories set up and still owned by UK companies or set up as joint ventures with overseas manufacturers. Those that maintain a UK manufacturing footprint have to be engaged in higher added value activity to financially justify their continued existence.

Taking a global view the offshoring of manufacturing is is a good trend insofar as huge swathes of overseas populations are brought out of genuine poverty as a consequence.
John2 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

While you are happy to call people with whom you disagree barmy, or accuse them of being angry as you did with me on the other thread, you display no grasp whatsoever of the basics of economics. On the other thread I gave a detailed and not very difficult to understand example of an area of UK industry that has not so far been adversely affected by Brexit and all you could say (quite wrongly) was that I was angry.

Physician, heal thyself.
2
Gordon Stainforth - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:
You misunderstood my post to Nick (who happens to be a good friend of mine). I was referring to 'something completely barmy' i.e a set of ideas. The other point you make is strange, because I have a distinct impression of complimenting you v recently on some post because I agreed with every word you said. I'll have to check back and see what you are referring to.

Edit. I've now spent c.15 mins quickly looking back at all the posts with your name in them since about July 15 and can't find it. Except one post where I complimented you for making an 'absolutely fascinating' point and another where you gave a very useful link to Richard Dawkins' website. So you must have confused me with someone else.
Post edited at 23:56
John2 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm sorry, you're right. What on earth was I thinking of?
Gordon Stainforth - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

well, thank goodness for that, because I was concerned I may have inadvertently said something (perhaps late at night) that I might regret.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> well, thank goodness for that, because I was concerned I may have inadvertently said something (perhaps late at night) that I might regret.

I'm still confused as to which ideas "are completely barmy", obviously apart from the idea that we should model the UK on China!
Post edited at 09:27
Gordon Stainforth - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well, not wishing to get into an argument, because I have a busy day ahead travelling ... as you know, I belong to that 48% of the electorate who believes that the Brexit project, whatever form it takes, and to generalise hugely, is essentially barmy.

PS. And at many levels, with many aspects: political, social and cultural as well as economic.
Post edited at 09:48
Postmanpat on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Well, not wishing to get into an argument, because I have a busy day ahead travelling ... as you know, I belong to that 48% of the electorate who believes that the Brexit project, whatever form it takes, and to generalise hugely, is essentially barmy.

> PS. And at many levels, with many aspects: political, social and cultural as well as economic.

Ah, you mean you are part of the (il)liberal metropolitan elite
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dave Garnett - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Ah, you mean you are part of the (il)liberal metropolitan elite

I know you are kidding, but I realise that I no longer know what 'liberal' means. I know what I think it means but increasingly some people seem to think it's the same as libertarianism or neoconservativism. In the states, of course, it means anything to the left of outright fascism.

Perhaps TobyA or someone else who actually understands these things could explain.
Gordon Stainforth - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

PMP: Yes. Dave: Ditto.
Toerag - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> Taking a global view the offshoring of manufacturing is is a good trend insofar as huge swathes of overseas populations are brought out of genuine poverty as a consequence.

....yet others whose work was offshored are put into poverty.
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Toerag:

The unfortunate thing is that for many, the work either goes off shore or it goes away.
Neil Williams - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

A cheap pound means it might be offshored to *us* though.
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

It would have to be very cheap for the UK (also soon not to be in the EU) to compete with Romania (also still in the EU)
Toerag - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Hang on a second, no-one's said *plummeting yet?! Are all the UKC pedants on holiday?
Neil Williams - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
Depends what you're competing on. Romania may not be able to offer the required skillset.

I am actually in that position in work. The work I presently do went to us in the UK (from a Swiss company) because we offered the best value and skills, and part of that was the relatively weak pound when the contract was let.

It might not work for call centres, but what future do they really have?
Post edited at 16:36
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd agree where we are talking about skilled, specialist or required locally workers, but the comment was about the work that can and is 'off shored'. For that work I'd be surprised if we (UK) ever got that back to a significant extent.
ukb shark - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Toerag:

> ....yet others whose work was offshored are put into poverty.

The relative poverty in a wealthy nation with a welfare safety net is a far lesser evil compared to absolute subsistence poverty of a third world nation

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.