Lordship 516

Aquarius

Silver

Trump

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Interesting. My source shall be severely > > chastised. > > > > But generally both Cantonese and Mandarin > speakers > > use simplified or traditional Chinese > writing... > > Yes true - been an interesting subject to look > into, apparently although the writing's generally > the same the differences in pronunciation are so > marked that a Mandarin speaker can't understand a > Cantonese speaker and vice-versa even if they are > reading from exactly the same text. Man daring is an umberella term for GuanHua, a collection of dialects from northern china, known in China as Putonghua & it has 4 tones; some Mandarin speakers have difficulty understanding regional 'accents' used to speak mandarin and there are also numerous local dialects. The shanghainese dialect is like two people having a row - very raucous to other mandarin speakers. Cantonese is known as GuangdongHua [from the Guangdong province] & it has 9 tones. Cantonese is spoken in Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macau & Fujian & for putonghua speakers learning cantonese is like us learning french. Mandarin speakers characterize cantonese as like dogs barking [rude but somewhat true] - Pure Mandarin is from Beijing & is very soft on the ear - it was the language used by the civil service in olden times. Until the 60's both used the same set of characters now known as Traditional characters but in the 1960's the Chinese government created a simplified version to aid greater literacy & printing. Taiwan & Singapore still speak Putonghua but use the traditional characters and Hong Kong created a further Hong Kong supplementary character set [traditional] in 1999. Putonghua is always developing mainly through composite characters making up modern words especially technical & scientific terms but calligraphers usually use traditional characters when they are composing. Complicated..! I got to about 100 words & stick at that - hello, good bye, goodnight, may I have the bill please, thank you etc.

LadyNorwood Wrote: > No, my point is that the Lord Chief Justice is a > founding member of ELI, therefore he is not > impartial.... You do the man an injustice, possibly even defaming him - he is a very well respected member of the judiciary & was entirely ethical and responsible to be involved in the ELI [European Law Institute] give that the UK is a member of the EU. Not to have been involved would have been a dereliction of his duty to UK jurisprudence given the impact that EU laws have on all our lives.

Snap

Boris' Titanic success has had its first scrape with the iceberg..! Great High Court decision - precise & supporting actual democracy. Difficult to see how government can overturn this. This will result in Brexit terms having to be brought before Parliament - long time before A50 happens.

Quids "..... 'austerity'...has been put on the backburner by the new PM leaving us with the 2nd highest defeceit in the G8" The current status is a result of Osbornes policies - Not May & Hammond. Public finances were coming in below expectation even before the referendum & are likely to further deteriorate over the next 4 years as evidenced in the recent reported poor tax-take last month. Hammond inherited the current public finance deterioration from Osborne who conveniently slipped out the back door physically & metaphorically before the chickens came home to roost. Hammond will deliver his views & budget on 23rd November & he is expected to say that there will be a 'gap' in public finances in the order of about ?20billion per year for the remainder of this parliament He is likely to suspend Osborne's austerity gig but only to either 1] extend the timeframe for 'balancing' the budget or 2] to separate the current budget balance requirements from investment requirements. If he does that he can have a significant surplus in the current account but can let the borrowing requirement for investment to overrun, particularly for productive purposes & stimulate much needed economic activity - a prime objective of the current administration. The headroom created in scenario 2 will enable him to fund reversing the social security cuts that are set harming low-income families - another objective of the government. Scenario 1 is not a reasonable option as it will result in tax rises and/or spending cuts in the years after 2021 - not something he will want to embark on. Any plan that he might propose will have to factor in the various negative effects from Brexit that will occur over the next four years & that is by no means easy for the Treasury or anyone to predict. Budgets will be very variable for the next few years. It is unlikely the Tory toffs will get their tax cuts this parliament - if he does cut taxes [except for lower paid] then this will be an act of vandalism.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship keeps changing his tune because there are > too many variables and his punch line is always a > massive dig at the Brexit situation..... No change to my tune ...& yes, there are too many unknowns & variables with little coming from the government to define anything, so almost impossible to compute. All we can do is try multiple scenarios & be prepared as little snippets fall from the government tables. ...& Brexit is the main influence on the block...so we have to use it as a reference, mostly negative at the moment. See how it goes over the next year - not good...& all because of Brexit. May got her response last night .. indifference from the 27 PMs in regard to her little declaration. All very polite & friendly but any of the 27 can veto the UK proposals so hard brexit is most likely. Basically the government are negotiating with themselves at the moment - no progress or even any attempt at prognosis.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can't expect a 'tax allowance' for not using a > public service. There are plenty of public > services which not everyone uses, but there is a > principle whereby we all contribute to the > maintenance of some basic, universal provision, > for the public good. You're perfectly entitled to > use your money to buy a better 'education product' > and I don't criticize anyone for doing so. But > please don't point to some inequalities in the > state system and then conclude that therefore > state education is a barrier to social mobility > and drawing equivalence with an exclusive and > exclusionary private system. That's the slight of > hand. State education is universal and free at the > point of use, the private sector is not. That's > fine, but there is a difference in terms of how > the two might act to reproduce privilege or > restrict social mobility. Didn't propose a tax allowance - just commented that none was available & that most parents were using already taxed moneys to pay for their children's education. Neither did I suggest that state education was a barrier to social mobility & I agree that there is a difference with how the two might act to reproduce privilage or restrict social mobility. This is a dichotomy that possibly has no possible resolution - should we destroy private education by eliminating it altogether..? Would that result in a better state education system..? Or should we spend more on education overall..? UK spends 5.6% of GDP - Norway, Sweden & Denmark spend 6.9%, 7% & 8.7% respectively with the results to show for it. However, Germany only spends 5.1% so maybe the problem is one of structure & management. I don't know the answer - all I do know is that state education in the UK has a problem and is very hit & miss and that is a problem for everyone. The per pupil spend between State Education & Private Education is part of the problem - more money needs to be spent. The better results being experienced in London is a testament of this with up to ?8,000 being available but elsewhere only ?4.000 is available. This disparity is part of the problem. Money pays for better facilities, lower pupil teacher ratios & so on. The same criteria applies to the NHS but this government is moving in the opposite direction.

Maybe there will be a Brexit Mayhem during Brexit Dismay at stupid Brexit Mayday, mayday, mayday - we are at sea and have lost all power & direction Mayfly Mayhap, perhaps Brexit Gamay... I'll have a large one, please & leave the bottle

Quids Most of the available economic data is old data, rolling average data with old components, short term data [August September] so the effects of Brexit cannot yet be seen in the various indices & data due to the considerable lag effect of the Brexit decision. Much of the business under way & orders are historical. Many manufacturing companies are still using raw materials bought at the pre-Brexit rates, some of it not yet arrived in the UK, some of it bought with hedged currency - normally these would be priced in at the value of replacement but in tough times they will just be priced at cost just to keep the company alive & retain good staff; when these influences work their way out of the system, new raw materials will have to be bought [currently projected at approx +15% average], energy prices will increase as will shipping - prices will go up. The lag period for this to change will be 6 to 12 months depending on the materials/components & their various trading arrangements. Don't forget that the Euro is also weak with interest confirmed today to stay at 0% so the UK doesn't have the world market all to itself. There will be winners & losers [car production] on both sides but the Europeans have a broader base [c. 500 million] upon which to spread the load & they can create cross substitution amongst the 27 in a manner that the UK cannot. Contrary to the Construction headline PMI, many projects have been shelved and new house starts have only been reported not actually happened yet. There is resistance within the buyer's market to buying now for many reasons and estate agents are historically unreliable as reporters of activity due to their propensity for puffing up the market at any time. A more reliable measure is Travis Perkins closing down 30 locations & cutting 600 jobs "due to weak sales in its plumbing and heating division" & Chief executive John Carter said it was "still too early to predict customer demand in 2017 with certainty". If you take a one dimensional view then & just want to feel a bit better as you sip your pint, then yes, we are doing better than was to be expected - FOR NOW. I'm all right Jack - a quid in me pocket, good soles on me shoes, kids fed & the good Lord will provide - NOT. However, if we take this view all the time and only live for now then we would all go down the pan very quickly. We need to look ahead and see what the likely future might be. Models only show us likely scenarios. Models are merely a tool and have to be further interrogated via other methods to test their likely outcomes. These are much more reliable in estimating the scale of the likely outcomes for the future [GDP, inflation, stagflation, employment]. The other method might be preferable - close your eyes & mind, put wet finger in the air, sit in corner of pub & sort out the world by gut feeling - most likely it is wind followed by a visit to the back room for relief - down the pan. We did factor in A50 being triggered but the lag in doing that caused its own uncertainties, not least the Three Brexiteers bragging about the derring do that they were going to wreak on Europe during negotiations. Theresa May will today experience her own version of shit hitting her fan & find out exactly how difficult the road ahead is when she meets a very polite but very neutral & even hostile 27 other PMs. Sweden, Denmark, Ireland & even Germany are/were the UKs natural allies [mostly for self-preservation] but even they have been pitching for over a year for relocating jobs from the UK in the event that Brexit occurs. Credit Suisse Group AG, said it would make Dublin its primary hub for servicing hedge funds in Europe and move staff from London. Morgan Stanley President Colm Kelleher, who is Irish, said his firm may make its European headquarters in Dublin or Frankfurt if a Brexit occurred. Ireland & others are bidding to take the 1,059 regulatory jobs that are in London such as European Medicines Agency (EMA)- 900 high value jobs- and the European Banking Authority (EBA)- 159 high value jobs. You can add thousands of other EU jobs that will just disappear as EU institutions close their operations down & UK workers in EU institutions start coming home. On top of this there is current resistance within European organizations in employing UK citizens due to perceived uncertainty with work visas. Tens of thousands of jobs currently in limbo but will ultimately be lost with nowhere to go. Brexit has thrown ?1bn (?1.1bn) of European Union research funding up for grabs, and other EU universities are lobbying fast to secure a share of it - the ?350million a week will be spent many times over if the government substitutes all of the EU funding & jobs that will be lost. Thanks a bunch Brexiteers..! On holidays abroad - economically the increased cost will have an advantage for the UK as more people will spend their money in the UK & also people that do go abroad will spend less time there so there will be a small advantage to the UK economy overall. The social impact is a different matter. Maybe May will come back with the realization that the best thing to do would be to renegotiate joining the EU ab initio with a program of reform & the EU might listen to that rather than a Brexit but the right wing old-Empire toffs in the Tory party would have an combined apoplectic fit so a general election & mayhem.......... funny how versatile that "may" word is..!

Parents who send their children to private schools have already paid income tax on the money that they spend on their children's education and they get nothing from the government towards that education nor do they get any tax allowance to compensate for relieving the government of the obligation to pay for schooling for their children. in other European countries the government give a fixed emolument to every school towards each child's education & the parents can then choose to send their kids to private schools that charge more for a better service - smaller class sizes, more subjects taught, better facilities & so on. In 2016-17, local authorities? SBUFs varied from just over ?4,000 in Wokingham to just under ?7,000 in Tower Hamlets. There are, however, other sources of income for schools ? including post-16- high need- , early years- , and pupil premium funding. Alleyn's fees for Years 7 to 13: ?6,042 per term (?18,126 p.a.) - Sutton Trust want the private schools to keep on doing what they do now but admit only the best students regardless of their capacity to pay and suggest the government will pay for all of this according to their plan. ?850m was provided in fee assistance for pupils with ?700m coming from the schools themselves. ?400m related to means-tested assistance & I am assuming that the other ?150m comes from the likes of the Dulwich Estate & other endowments. There are 518,432 pupils including 27,211 foreign students so the Sutton Trust want the government to find another ?7 billion per year or so for this worthy project. The total education budget is ?85billion so that is a non starter given that ?2.5 billion is needed for the immediate shortfall in the NHS & every year to 2020 and the government is baulking at that. The governments solution is an accountants solution - closures & squeezing salaries. They have done virtually the same with the education budget while their own salaries go up & up. People who have more money have better food, clothes, houses, cars & holidays - they also buy a better education product for their children. That is not to say that they are any better than less well off people or that children at state schools don't do just as well in many cases. What need to be addressed is a more fair distribution of wealth & a better management of education including ensuring that teachers are up to scratch and doing the best job possible for all the students in the UK. Look to Sweden & Denmark & other European countries - oops sorry, how could any other country offer the UK any advice on anything - Sorry sorry Mr Gove et al....!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To quote you > > "The PMI figure is one of the most reliable > indicators that has consistently predicted > economic performance - fact not opinion. Much of > he reporting is qualative but it is reported by > experienced professionals and is segregated > between large, medium & small companies so it is a > serious and dependable index worldwide" > > So is this true or not? Because it's bounced back > for Services, Manufacturing and Construction and > above predictions..... > > Consumer confidence is what it is, a measurement > of where sentiment is RIGHT NOW, whether stoked or > false but now up again - next year may well change > I suspect that it will but that's an opinion and > interest rates have been low for years and that's > positive for many consumers, annuities only effect > the retired, so don't see how these will effect > consumer confidence materially as you state above > - not much logic in your argument here, again. In > fact if inflation goes up interest rates more > likely to rise and my feel is that will actually > have a negative effect on consumer confidence. > > Uncertainty remains things may well get worse - my > opinion (too) but the fact thus far haven't chimed > with your earlier analysis on where we are now. I suggest you read the full Construction PMI report which states that only 45% of respondents forecast a rise in output and also that the degree of confidence remained softer than that seen at the start of 2016. "annuities only effect the retired, so don't see how these will effect consumer confidence materially as you state above" Are retired people not consumers..? Retirement spend in the UK [direct & indirect] is a significant component of the economic mix and any reduction in their income impacts considerably as retirees tend to spend most of their current income as & when they receive it. I expect my earlier analysis to start coming through in the real economy in the 2nd to 3rd quarter of 2017 - I hope I am wrong but fear that my analysis [& others] will prove to be correct. What could stop it would be a wonderful Christmas present fro Brussels but that is unlikely to happen..!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem I have with your analysis Lordship - > is that you keep changing your tune. At first you > said we had no data but you early reads on 'your > model' were for calamity - and now almost all the > data is better than expected, you are > concentrating on the one bit that isn't - the ? > and making general comments about QE that are true > and true globally and bugger all to do with > Brexit. You are then going into conjecture about > what consumers will be doing next year - which is, > after all, just your opinion. > > For clarity, I voted remain, i too see uncertainty > (it's not a difficult thing to predict) and think > things would have been better if we'd stayed but > the data, that you implied was so important when > you started your analysis immediately post Brexit, > is by an large pretty benign THUS FAR. > > I am a layman with interest in economics you are a > self-claimed pro, but your predictions have been > wide of the mark TO DATE . Of course no-one knows > what the future may hold but your early > predictions look over pessimistic to where we are > now. > > > I see some inconsistencies in your arguments, > which feel more political that sound modelling - > which is a pretty dismal science anyway! You have > a slightly I am an expert style of posting when so > far you haven't demonstrated much! I enjoy our > debates so don't take this personally - more like > an online chat over a virtual pint :) I respond to stock market comments as you and others use it to somehow demonstrate that the economy is doing well - now you suddenly declare it has nothing to do with Brexit or the economy,that it is a global phenomenon which I agree with. However Carney further stoked the Stock Market by issuing more QE in order to stave off some of the worst effects of Brexit so for the UK it was a Brexit event albeit tangential. I have always held the view that the stock market has little to do with the real economy as it is essentially a gambling saloon - in fact traders use Monte Carlo simulations to test long term stock market returns. I also use it for testing pricing strategies. At the moment we don't have enough resilient data [much of it rolling data since before July 23rd] and also sufficient time hasn't passed to allow many of the effects of Brexit to work through the economy. The first real data will come about March of next year - just when May expects to deliver the Article 50 notice. Added to that the good ship May is directionless and the blokes at the helm are vying with each other as to which direction to steer the ship. They cannot even agree on what crew they want onboard. Uncertainty breeds a bad economy & this administration is one of the worst I have experienced - worse than Heath or Major for dithering whilst showing all the unwarranted self-confidence that is cultured within the walls of the likes of Eton & Oxbridge. All mouth & no trousers. Modelling only informs & defines parameters and of their own cannot forecast actuals. They mostly tell us what will not or what cannot happen. If you like they give us a cap & a collar within which we can then use other methodologies to develop strategies for careful management of any given situation. Agent based modelling for segments of the economy on the other hand can give us very accurate forecasts but only for limited purposes & in quite defined circumstances. I deal in "what ifs" every day but unfortunately I am confronted with too many "ifs" & "buts" that are too obscure at present to even define which makes any judgement pretty impossible to normalize. The message from the Brexiteers is confusing & is diametrically opposed to the noises coming from Brussels. The Brussels guys have their own problems but if they capitulate to the demands of the Three Brexiteeers & Rees-Mogg then their problems will multiply ten-fold & more so the Brexiteers will have to accept whatever Brussels will dictate and Brussels will have to take the consequences on the chin also. My " conjecture" about consumer behaviour is more than that - I exchange views & news with other people who practice economics arena & we try to reach a consensus about what is happening not only using raw data but also using feedback & reporting from various official sources. This informs our views. Already there is a slowdown in new house purchase and developers have reduced their activity. Many major projects such as the Battersea project are engaging in a concerted sales efforts in China, Singapore & elsewhere and offering "special" discounts & payment terms in a desperate attempt to keep the momentum going. I visited their sales office in Shanghai and I am inundated with offers on a daily basis - discounts, extras, delayed payments - anything for a signature. More of this will happen over the next two years. My original analysis still stands - all that has happened are some random events that could not be forecast as in consumers taking no notice of the impending recession & taking advantage of discounting by the retailers. This phase will come to an end and even retailers are forecasting this to happen early next year. I have clients who are suppliers whose orders have been cut by European [including UK] retailers by as much as 40% with prices slashed & shipping refills via more costly means [air cargo] rather than hold stock in their warehouses that won't sell & go out of fashion or technologically out of date. As to my expertise - I doubt myself every day & revisit my work with self criticism which is much more harsh than you could ever vent on me :)) I have to be aware of the political influences and this causes me to make comment - much of the time I am trying to gain some clue as to what these clowns are going to do next. How can you or I know if they don't know themselves..? This is our quandary - in an uncertain world they give us more uncertainty.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wall of text! > > MY bit on PMI > > > The biggest downers in data are consumer > > confidence & PMI but BOTH are survey data based > on > > sentiment, which given the apocalyptic warnings > > pre-referendum were not likely to be up - but > > still of concern I'd agree. > Uncertainty/sentiment > > still the issue not reality > > I agree with you on PMI......remind me what has > happened with that (PMI) since July? :) (and > Consumer Confidence). Sorry about the length - cannot communicate detail in soundbites or quips..! On PMI - don't just read the headline figure [which is pretty good - for now] - also have a look at Manufacturing Input Prices rose 7.2% in the year to September 2016 & this doesn't include energy or shipping costs. Many of the inputs are on existing contracts which when worked through will attract quite substantial increased costs and will likely be negotiated with Price Variation clauses to allow for currency fluctuations. Costs over the next year for industrial imports [raw materials, components etc] are expected to be in the range of somewhere in the order of 7% to 15% higher as a baseline. Add energy & shipping increases to that and exports will suffer even in the medium term. Consumer confidence has been stoked up by the Brexiteers using unsubstantiated criteria and baloney - when the increased costs, more wage squeezes, very low interest rates [or none] on deposits & poor annuity values start to bite then this confidence will soon evaporate. Not what I would wish for but we have to make allowances for reality. 2017/2018 are not going to be years anyone will want to remember. The well off will say it is worth it for a better future - the less well off will just have to grin & bear it.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So. Lordship & fellow economists > > FTSE 250 now above pre-Brexit levels > Ftse 100 well above Brexit Levels > Stated commitments from big companies to invest in > UK post brexit - GSK, BAE, Wells Fargo as examples > (been a few) > Hendersons saying property funds set for a boost > post-Brexit > Jobless at lowest level since 90s > GDP 2nd quarter above expectations (although lower > in June) > Halifax House prices up > India, US, Australia, Canada, China have all on > their own initiative approached the UK about new > trade deals > All UK banks passed recent stress test (i believe) > unlike most Italian and Deutchbank > > The biggest downers in data are consumer > confidence & PMI but BOTH are survey data based on > sentiment, which given the apocalyptic warnings > pre-referendum were not likely to be up - but > still of concern I'd agree. Uncertainty/sentiment > still the issue not reality, > > Meanwhile in Europe Austria/France GDP grinds to a > halt; Greece situation of the front pages but > failing miserably; several banks teetering > > It's hardly Armageddon yet is it? I think growth > will be dampened for a while but it's not worse > case scenario by any stretch on current data is > it? > > What are your views? The PMI figure is one of the most reliable indicators that has consistently predicted economic performance - fact not opinion. Much of he reporting is qualative but it is reported by experienced professionals and is segregated between large, medium & small companies so it is a serious and dependable index worldwide. GDP increased by 2.1% year on year mainly from Manufacturing, mining & services; however GDP per capita PPP only increased by 1.5% which shows the effect of the devaluation of the ?. This will become more pronounced over the coming months & years. The FTSE does not reflect the real economy. Most of the gains are derived from quantitive easing & increased revenue due to revaluation of the ?. Much of the other gains are from asset revaluation due to the global nature of the underlying asset [gold, foreign mining assets etc] The only sensible thing that Trump has said is that the Stock Market is in a bubble, artificially created, mainly by quantitative easing which is giving a false positive in relation to the market's trend. Investors have ignored the underlying fundamental economic indicators which has lead to overheated stock market prices. We now have the ingredients for a severe market correction such as we saw when the market crashed in 2008 as a result of over-hyped subprime loans & credit default swaps & other doubtful derivatives. Have a look at Deutsche Bank which has off balance sheet obligations that are 20 times the German GDP & 5 times their Market capitalization - there are many more banks like this including UK banks [barclay's ?]that Carney absolved from maintaining liquidity requirements recently - prudence has been abandoned and the consumer is exposed. It doesn't matter where a big bank is located - if it fails it will be another Lehmans & worse & Johnny Public will pay for it all. The current indices & other data do not show the effect of Brexit. With uncertainty & devaluation currently being the main influences & we still have 2.5 years of that & then a long road to recovery there is much anguish for normal people ahead. I am not surprised with the current indices & other reported data. The influence of the Brexit decision & consequent devaluation of the ? [down 20% from this time last year & down 17% since 22nd July - still trending downwards despite improving by 1.5 cents over the last three days & expected to travel south over the coming months, has yet to come through to impact the real economy - where you & I live. The only real measurable advantage that has come out of devaluation is for tourism including retail tourism but that is dependent on fuel prices holding low. Any increase in fuel prices will increase airfares & dampen the current buoyant tourism inflows. The devaluation of the ? has mixed influences - it makes exports cheaper but imports more expensive. The UK imports most of it's raw materials & energy & as these constitute the greater cost of production the advantage is largely eroded. When you add on the extra costs of promotion & export administration the margin will be negligible so no big advantage here. This is just some feel-good spoof that the Brexiteers are using to pump up the spirits of a depressed people. The idea that the UK are going to have a boom in sales through having our own agreements is risible as most serious UK companies are already trading as hard as possible with every market in the world. At best the increased sales will be marginal and couldn't possibly substitute the potential loss of sales within Europe. The EU is not so exposed to loss of exports to the UK as might first be thought. The EU can substitute across the 27 countries by eliminating goods exported from the UK & cross-substituting to make up exports to the UK. For instance Ireland exports about Euro1.5 billion of beef to the UK but the UK exports about ?900k of beef to Germany - so Ireland can make up its lost market by selling the UK complement of exports to Germany & probably maintain the balance of exports to the UK anyway, so no loss, just a realignment of marketing effort. So this card is a low value card for the Three Brexiteers to play - the Europeans are very aware of this and working on it as we speak. They ain't so stupid as Davis, Fox &Johnson seem to think & they are working more positively in a coordinated effort to mitigate the effect of Brexit. There is no way the Germans, French & others will relent on services passporting & the single market without free movement & budget contribution - this is just a hallucination that the Brexiteers use to convince each other that they made the correct decision, basically latent diffidence. With the upper-class medieval twit Jacob Rees-Mogg insulting the influential Elmer Brok [current Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs]by calling him a know-nothing - this doesn't help the UK case. The current indices have been derived from old data. There is a considerable lag in the effects of devaluation & uncertainty that will be added to by adverse trading conditions with Europe. Plus the foreign suppliers currently have their own problems and are not passing on current cost influences in order to maintain turnover in a very challenging environment at home & globally. Commodities & energy prices are currently abnormally depressed due to overstocking because of running supply contracts & reduced demand, the same applies to shipping prices; this can change rapidly as other countries will experience improvement in trade. There is a knock on effect in wholesale prices, prices of intermediate goods & finished consumer goods. The current accrued level of inflation computes at about 7% & this can rise higher as world demand will increase with consequent increases in raw materials, energy & shipping rising with demand. The devil is in the detail. Money talks, bullshit walks. Consumer Price Index - measures price changes at consumer retail level using a basket of goods approach. It is essentially a manufactured number. The core rate also includes volatile energy & food prices & possibly intentionally understates inflation as [for instance] it includes less-costly substituted items such as the price of a cheaper alternative similar item as buyers react to price increases. It might be added that the government constructively understates inflation as it uses CPI to adjust various welfare payments. Higher Input Prices at +7.2% in September plus energy price increases [& more to come] is certain to put upward pressure over the coming months & years - it is a one-way expectation for the forseeable future. Couple that with the continuing wage squeeze & depressed annuities, the future is not so rosy as Quids & Rook would like us to believe. Consumer trends & Consumer spending reports [barclays] - these show that spending increased after Brexit decision. It measures the past and cannot measure what the future might hold. Anecdotally & from informed sources suggest that consumers will hold back on spending after January 2017 & well into the next 2.5 years as uncertainty continues. Jobs, prices & even increased taxation & reduced government services [that will be substituted by private purchase elsewhere] are a risk so in general people will be prudent & avoid unnecessary spending. Enjoy this Christmas because the next few years are going to be exciting for most UK residents.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "Even countries that are communist in name like China etc abandoned Marxist economics long ago." China has long had many difficulties in defining exactly what the CCP stands for & has merely paid lip service to the works of Karl Marx but practices the Leninist concept of ?democratic centralism?, the code words for putting into practice Marx?s dictatorship of the proletariat under the rule of the Communist Party that has only 88 million members out of more than 1.3 billion of the population. Not only have the Chinese abandoned Marxist economics but they appear to have abandoned economics in its entirety. Up to 2007, China was the most potent economy in the world & gaining in prosperity every year. In 2006 when I first went to China, they boasted that they then had over 250 million people in its "middle class" [actually gainfully employed & earning salaries/wages] - now they report that this figure is in the order of 650million people, a huge achievement by any standards. In 2008 the Chinese government panicked & engaged in the largest stimulus ever in history injecting about $4 trillion into the economy. But that has come at the cost of a future crisis that is now imminent. The fiscal stimulus was achieved by way of loading debt onto state owned enterprises to keep the economy growing, resulting in an explosion of debt that must now be paid off. Some of this was productive but much of it was inefficient & this year they sanctioned a further $1 trillion of stimulus. Even for the economic behemoth of China these are breathtaking numbers. In 2015 data showing that total debt in the Chinese economy had quadrupled in only seven years to $28tn, 282% of GDP and 14% of the total global debt. [Total US government debt is $19.5 trillion - about 105% of GDP] It cannot pay off the accumulated debts, many of which are in reality non-performing loans, and has to borrow more just to pay off what it already has, not to increase production. The debt mountain is more chronic in certain industries, especially key ones such as commodities (i.e. raw materials). According to Macquarie, debt in this sector has increased by 300% since 2007, and about half of these companies now have interest payments that are twice as high as their earnings. They are left with mountains & warehouses full of millions of tonnes of raw materials that the world doesn't want & continue to borrow to pay off their interest burden. Further they have been selling off their reserves of foreign currency which now stands at an all time low, in order to support an ever failing RMB [Yuan]. China, through its leader XiJing Ping [1st July 2016 - in a speech to mark the party?s 95th anniversary], is reasserting its Marxist credentials - ?we are building ? socialism with Chinese characteristics, not some other-ism?. China?s 88 million Communist Party members have also been reminded by Xi not to ?betray or abandon? Marxism. All this is but political illusion [in the best Marxist tradition] at a time when there is a struggle brewing between the rampant capitalists on one hand & the well established workers on the other hand that expect a decent wage/salary so they can lead a decent life. This affects us all - a significant Chinese slowdown or recession could cause global deflation and debt defaults. This also mirrors what is happening across the world - deep economic crisis & irreconcilable class struggles.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with > them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher.." > > Are you Jeremy Corbyn? I claim my ?5. And a > shadow cabinet job. Alas - you are overqualified..!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To suggest that much of the population of the U.K. > has poor or no accommodation and/or not enough > food is horseshit I.e. so far from the truth as to > be offensive. Unfortunately it is not a suggestion - it is a fact. The all-party enquiry published in Dec 2014 illustrated the sad facts that real poverty, hunger & very poor housing standards are endemic in the UK. Families have been driven into poverty by low wages, punitive welfare reforms and money-grabbing companies supplying gas, water, electricity and mobile phone contracts. Almost half of all families at least one parent skips food in a bid to ensure others have enough to eat. Department for Work and Pensions was slammed for failing to pay desperate people on time. We had the recent cases where Caapita withdrew tax credits from people on the basis that there had been another person associated with the same address as a claimant including a man who had died. Three Million children still in poverty, three & a half million adults go to bed hungry at night so their children can eat - all this while the Tory government give tax reductions to their mates & sponsors, gather in the bars at Westminster to discuss great shiny projects of doubtful use to society, whilst at the same time engage in dubious ideological economic experiments that have proven to have failed dismally. It's particularly egregious > horseshit coming from Lordship, whose usual MO is > to treat crude macro models as a literal looking > glass into the future; at least with those > comments there is some factual element, albeit the > confident conclusions are risible. I have little time for macro models which have unfortunately been used by economists who are hired gunslingers to prop up the policies of whatever government of the day waffles on about - whether Labour, Tory or coalition. Economic Models are just that - models. They ought not be used as an actual reality but rather as an aid to review where policy might be tempered so as to have the greater economic good. The idea that abstract mathematical models could mirror an everchanging economy subject to random internal & external events is a nonsense that unfortunately is still being perpetuated & used by governments today. Macroeconomics has failed society & needs revision but governments & vested interests are slow to adapt. I use models every day but we have to run them 24/7 in order to be able to have a view of change in whatever circumstances we are examining. We also use agent based simulations but only for segments of our work - these are slightly more reliable but cannot predict the future - for that we need to bring back Mystic Meg; she would probably be just as good as some of the modelers. > > And still no proper explanation for why the > suffering masses who were the victims of Thatcher > voted in another Tory govt in 92 with the largest > number of votes cast for one party, ever. It was 7 > years from Thatch being forced out to Blair being > voted in. It was that very Thatcher with her mentors & acolytes [Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Sir Keith Joseph et al] who got the world into this mess we have now, postulating that they could manage large diverse & ever-changing economies through the use of ever more complicated abstract mathematical models that cannot bear anything close to reality as they do not allow for the randomness of activity within society. Far from managing the economy, reliance on these flawed macroeconomic models contributed to the 2008 systemic crash in concert with poor regulation & oversight. She ripped the heart out of social housing, devastating the housing departments of Local Authorities instead of bring about root & branch change through training & investment. Handed the provision of social housing to arrogant Housing Associations who are acting like 19th century speculators, giving short term leases, forcing people who cannot afford it to buy houses & so on. Then along comes Osbourne with the great solution, plucked from some module of their Treasury model, cut spending by reducing welfare, outsource even more services to his mates like Capita, give tax cuts to more of his mates with the BoE lashing out QE that went into the coffers of the already comfortable & rich [just as the US treasury were ceasing QE as it had proven not to be very effective]. > > And Corbyn is a reaction to Blair alright, but > amongst people who are in denial about the fact > that TB won three elections and the Tories have > since won two. Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher - OK he did drop a few crumbs from the table but essentially he continued where Thatcher left off. Gordon Brown tried his best but by the time he became PM it was already too late. > > Edited to add: this thread, by its title, is about > perceptions of Cameron and by logical extension, > his govt. I have made no comments on that; I have > simply observed that the narrow perspective > advanced so confidently by a few prolific posters > is way out of the mainstream as well as > occasionally straying into factually and > historically dubious territory. The mainstream is where the failure has flourished & needs reforming & change. I am always comfortable to be outside the mainstream

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He said your argument was horse shit which I agree > was rude, particularly without any refutation of > specific points. > > But you suggesting him disagreeing with your > reasoning means he does't care about poor people > is much worse. Accusing someone of being a 'bad > person' because they hold different positions than > you creates the kind demonisation and nastiness in > politics previously discussed. I wasn't making an argument - only making a comment about values. Had he expressed it differently I wouldn't have written what I did. I don't mind when someone merely disagrees with me - that is the essence of reaching common ground. I didn't appreciate his crude dismissive approach. C'est la vie.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship, you sound pretty unpleasant... Not unpleasant - just a reaction to DaveR's rather unpleasant comment in regard to what I had written......

DaveR Wrote: > And BTW, this is the biggest load of horsesh!t > posted on the forum for a very long time: > > "Many submissions were made for alternative > applications of this money including improving & > upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but > these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in > apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons > -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about > how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in > claiming advancement if much of your population > has very poor accommodation or even not enough > food." > > As you were. I see compassion & care for the disadvantaged are not your greatest attributes.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What an ignorant comment. HS2 is about connecting > London with the Northern Powerhouse (or whatever > project May has christened it). > > Shame on the UK as the first railway network in > the world to be behind many of our European > cousins. And proposed by the labour government. So you say. However only three years ago the projected costs stood at ?33billion - now "revised" to ?55billion. There are rumour that this cost is likely to rose to over ?80 Billion..! How can any society trust such a project in the hands of such incompetent reckless managers..? What the other cities in the UK need is a better & more efficient local transport system before the costly high speed connections are put in place. The Government have already locked taxpayers into a dubious Hinckley Point deal - their legacies will be paid for by future generations and by starving other essential investment of funds. If they really have the interests of the North at heart, they would concentrate their efforts & funds in upgrading the Northern Intercity Network, go ahead with HS3 first [connecting Manchester to Leeds], continue upgrading the Transpennine Network, upgrade the existing routes between London & Birmingham instead of shaving a half hour off the traveltime between London & the northern cities. Also possibly building HS2 Phase 2 first which is more relevant to the Northern cities. More bang for your buck & directly beneficial to the Northern Regions without any disadvantage to London. There is also a significant need to improve the western networks before going off buying fancy shiny boy racer trains.

"But HS2 is kind of like putting all the eggs in one basket with only limited return. " Many submissions were made for alternative applications of this money including improving & upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food.