Discussion
walm said:
Again, just to make it completely clear... a huge proportion of the cost of a car is USD denominated. Labour is an important but not particularly significant chunk of the costs.
And for luxury cars you actually have a very weird economic effect since they are Veblen goods, where demand actually DROPS when you lower the price!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Interesting. I'd heard of a similar theory relating to "Giffen Goods" when I studied economics (many moons ago now)And for luxury cars you actually have a very weird economic effect since they are Veblen goods, where demand actually DROPS when you lower the price!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Perhaps Jaguar need to build a few family estates and hatchbacks then
Sway said:
We make more than every other country, bar eight.
Just let that sink in. Out of a hundred and ninety odd countries, many significantly bigger than us, and we make more than a hundred and eighty of them.
you need to qualify your statement when you say "many significantly bigger than us". What measurement are you using to describe other countries as 'bigger'? Just let that sink in. Out of a hundred and ninety odd countries, many significantly bigger than us, and we make more than a hundred and eighty of them.
Geographical size?
GDP?
Population?
Debt levels?
///ajd said:
Are you saying the govt didn't outline the consequences of brexit?
Which bits do you feel uninformed about? I don't see anything new or unforeseen post vote, all of it was debated, though brexit side did make some promises they can't keep. Not sure the govt side did though - have you an example?
The government did not run the remain campaign. Britain Stronger in Europe was the official remain campaign appointed by the electoral commission. The governments job was to produce a plan showing what they would do if the electorate voted to leave and also indicating their negotiating positions. A simple list of with the headings "Must Have", "Should Have" and "Nice to Have" would have given a good indication of what they thought was possible. Which bits do you feel uninformed about? I don't see anything new or unforeseen post vote, all of it was debated, though brexit side did make some promises they can't keep. Not sure the govt side did though - have you an example?
It wasn't the job of the Vote Leave campaign to produce this as they are not the government.
walm said:
Ask your wife how much work it took to land that first US order.
You can't just drop the price and expect the phone to start ringing.
It all costs money: marketing, distribution, shipping.
Sure if you have an existing US presence it will help, but elasticity isn't usually 100% so you are still worse off.
OK but the principles in my post remain...businesses will move to other suppliers if quality is right and cost is less...then change again later...and there's no need for a trade deal to do trade. I'd also argue that, as suggested in my post, smaller businesses are more agile players. This all relates to the upside from a weaker pound.You can't just drop the price and expect the phone to start ringing.
It all costs money: marketing, distribution, shipping.
Sure if you have an existing US presence it will help, but elasticity isn't usually 100% so you are still worse off.
Sway said:
Well, you stated quite clearly that 'we really don't make very much'.
Yet clearly we do. In the top 5% of manufacturering nations in the world. That would seem like a hell of a lot.
You have taken my quote out of context.Yet clearly we do. In the top 5% of manufacturering nations in the world. That would seem like a hell of a lot.
I was explaining why it was more helpful to GERMANY but not as helpful to us.
Germany has something like 20% of output from manufacturing vs. 10% for us.
$8,000 per capita vs. $3,900 for us.
Sure we manufacture more than Sudan - bully for us!
walm said:
Sway said:
Well, you stated quite clearly that 'we really don't make very much'.
Yet clearly we do. In the top 5% of manufacturering nations in the world. That would seem like a hell of a lot.
You have taken my quote out of context.Yet clearly we do. In the top 5% of manufacturering nations in the world. That would seem like a hell of a lot.
I was explaining why it was more helpful to GERMANY but not as helpful to us.
Germany has something like 20% of output from manufacturing vs. 10% for us.
$8,000 per capita vs. $3,900 for us.
Sure we manufacture more than Sudan - bully for us!
Out of interest, what was the manufacturing percentage of German GDP prior to joining the Euro and massively devaluing the currency in use?
sidicks said:
Why not, says who?
Where the money be spent instead?
Because the reason they got the money was because they were deprived regions - mainly because they were ignored by westminster.Where the money be spent instead?
Where will the money be spent instead? Probably poland. Or romania. Who knows, we are not in the EU anymore.
Cornwall have already asked that the forecast eu investemnt up to 2020 be honoured. Good luck with that!
Oh and less we forget- apparently we are broke, hence all the austerity.
Edited by vonuber on Monday 27th June 09:43
vonuber said:
sidicks said:
Why not, says who?
Where the money be spent instead?
Because the reason they got the money was because they were deprived reasons - mainly because hey were ignored by westminster.Where the money be spent instead?
Nor have you said that the EU might have given more, rather than invest in vanity buildings for their fat arses.
vonuber said:
sidicks said:
Why not, says who?
Where the money be spent instead?
Because the reason they got the money was because they were deprived reasons - mainly because hey were ignored by westminster.Where the money be spent instead?
Where will the money be spent instead? Probably poland. Or romania. Who knows, we are not in the EU anymore.
Cornwall have already asked that the forecast eu investemnt up to 2020 be honoured. Good luck with that!
Oh and less we forget- apparently we are broke, hence all the austerity.
The money being spent on these things is just a portion of the money we give to the EU in the first place - we are net contributors.
If we aren't going to be giving this money to the EU then we have it to spend on what we see as most important. If it is not this sort of regional development, it will be something else.
Why do you not understand this?
sidicks said:
sidicks said:
walm said:
Not sure if serious... it will be spent in the EU!
Where did that money come from in the first place?In other news, water still wet.
In order to save that few hundred million per day, we have potentially caused a recession, wiped $2tn off global markets and caused and ongoing collapse in the GBP (which isn't ALL bad, yes Turbobloke, but net-net IT'S BAD).
walm said:
sidicks said:
sidicks said:
walm said:
Not sure if serious... it will be spent in the EU!
Where did that money come from in the first place?In other news, water still wet.
In order to save that few hundred million per day, we have potentially caused a recession, wiped $2tn off global markets and caused and ongoing collapse in the GBP (which isn't ALL bad, yes Turbobloke, but net-net IT'S BAD).
walm said:
turbobloke said:
Short-term it could be worse. Then the agility could get going, where it exists.
I hope you are right, for all of us! On a wider footing Osborne might like to cut corptax, give breaks to businsses that relocate and breaks to those already here. Then the Parisian local politicos making different noises will see French businesses moving to London rather than vice versa, following private capital shifting after Hollande was elected.
walm said:
sidicks said:
sidicks said:
walm said:
Not sure if serious... it will be spent in the EU!
Where did that money come from in the first place?In other news, water still wet.
In order to save that few hundred million per day, we have potentially caused a recession, wiped $2tn off global markets and caused and ongoing collapse in the GBP (which isn't ALL bad, yes Turbobloke, but net-net IT'S BAD).
So, potential recession, global market reduction, weaker pound, long period of trade uncertainty whilst we negotiate with the whole world AND we still send money to the EU BUT we can change a few laws around (but not too many as a bunch of them around human rights have nothing to do with the EU).
How can anyone not see that as a WIN WIN, eh?
mattmurdock said:
walm said:
sidicks said:
sidicks said:
walm said:
Not sure if serious... it will be spent in the EU!
Where did that money come from in the first place?In other news, water still wet.
In order to save that few hundred million per day, we have potentially caused a recession, wiped $2tn off global markets and caused and ongoing collapse in the GBP (which isn't ALL bad, yes Turbobloke, but net-net IT'S BAD).
So, potential recession, global market reduction, weaker pound, long period of trade uncertainty whilst we negotiate with the whole world AND we still send money to the EU BUT we can change a few laws around (but not too many as a bunch of them around human rights have nothing to do with the EU).
How can anyone not see that as a WIN WIN, eh?
Anyone would think ERM exit ended the world, then the GFC ended it again because it hadn't really ended. Both events had uncertainty and market turbulence initially. For those wondering where the sunshine went, it'll dawn on you eventually.
sidicks said:
You still didn't answer the question.
The money being spent on these things is just a portion of the money we give to the EU in the first place - we are net contributors.
If we aren't going to be giving this money to the EU then we have it to spend on what we see as most important. If it is not this sort of regional development, it will be something else.
Why do you not understand this?
The same people are in charge as before - why do you not understand this? London and the south east will be fine. The regions will suffer as they always have done. Northern powerhouse? Ha.The money being spent on these things is just a portion of the money we give to the EU in the first place - we are net contributors.
If we aren't going to be giving this money to the EU then we have it to spend on what we see as most important. If it is not this sort of regional development, it will be something else.
Why do you not understand this?
turbobloke said:
Because they're looking at it with a longer view than you?
Anyone would think ERM exit ended the world, then the GFC ended it again because it hadn't really ended. Both events had uncertainty and market turbulence initially. For those wondering where the sunshine went, it'll dawn on you eventually.
I'm looking at the longer view, the longer view where global organisations still influence our laws, where we are still a net contributor to the EU and still have free movement of labour - but to get to that, we have gone through a recession and general market turmoil across the globe.Anyone would think ERM exit ended the world, then the GFC ended it again because it hadn't really ended. Both events had uncertainty and market turbulence initially. For those wondering where the sunshine went, it'll dawn on you eventually.
Where I am struggling is how the leavers actually thought this would go? I can't really see any outcome that does not end with us being a net contributor to the EU, with free movement of labour (perhaps with some concession to benefits payments) and still beholden to the EHCR, which seems to me at odds with the expressed intent of the people who voted leave on Pistonheads. Added to that, pensions knackered in the short-term, businesses folding or relocating, more unemployment in the short-term and more austerity for the short-term.
What cost is this 'sovereignty' that is pretty much a unicorn likely to inflict?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff