Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Sway said:
£2Tn a week more convincing? f
king hell. The views you're talking about are rare - what support does Britain First get? Hardly any. What percentage of people do you think 'believe the myth' that all British soldiers from WW2 would have supported Brexit? Come off it chap, you're drinking the Kool Aid a bit early for a Sunday...
Oh, and anything to refute Germany having an increased level of influence compared to most other nations? Of course, it's exceptionally difficult to think of examples of Merkel browbeating other nations into agreeing with her position. Oh wait...
1. no one is saying "we won the war but Germany is now running the EU"
2. but anyway "Germany is running the EU isn't it!"
The mindset of 1 and 2 are linked.
---
Yes yes, 2Bn, not 2Tn. A simple typo.
Compared to £350m/week better off, £2000m/week worse off is quite a change.
Its an official govt prediction too. Oh but its "draft", so that's OK then, nothing to see here, it'll probably totally change won't it? No of course it won't!
Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 25th February 11:21
Gloria Slap said:
Sway said:
£2Tn a week more convincing? f
king hell. The views you're talking about are rare - what support does Britain First get? Hardly any. What percentage of people do you think 'believe the myth' that all British soldiers from WW2 would have supported Brexit? Come off it chap, you're drinking the Kool Aid a bit early for a Sunday...
Oh, and anything to refute Germany having an increased level of influence compared to most other nations? Of course, it's exceptionally difficult to think of examples of Merkel browbeating other nations into agreeing with her position. Oh wait...
1. no one is saying "we won the war but Germany is now running the EU"
I never said that. I try not to use absolutes, so am unlikely to have ever said 'no one'... What I did say, and was the content of your first post, is that hardly anyone proposes that every British WW2 soldier would be in favour of Brexit.
2. but anyway "Germany is running the EU isn't it!"
Again, I never said that Germany is running the EU. I did say there is plenty to suggest they have greater influence than the structures would suggest they should have. Fancy countering that? Thought not, it's easier to make stuff up.
The mindset of 1 and 2 are linked.
---
Yes yes, 2Bn, not 2Tn. A simple typo.
Compared to £350m/week better off, £2000m/week worse off is quite a change.
Its an official govt prediction too. Oh but its "draft", so that's OK then, nothing to see here, it'll probably totally change won't it? No of course it won't!
Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 25th February 11:21
Oh, and just for clarity, the £2Bn a week isn't a change. It's a difference in a predicted rate of change. A rate of change that those predicting (the Treasury) have zero track record of predicting accurately for more than three months. Yet you're pinning your argument on a fifteen year prediction from them?
Grasping. I'd say at straws but they're not flavour of the month at the moment.
Gloria Slap said:
.
Compared to £350m/week better off, £2000m/week worse off is quite a change.
Its an official govt prediction too. Oh but its "draft", so that's OK then, nothing to see here, it'll probably totally change won't it? No of course it won't!
There is a difference between the two. One is an actual figure which can be argued - usually against - but nonetheless can be analysed in some sort of factual way. We can actually analyse what we send in theory or in practice to the EU and what we get back. Many would argue £350m is misleading but one can come up with one's own figure and back it with actual facts.Compared to £350m/week better off, £2000m/week worse off is quite a change.
Its an official govt prediction too. Oh but its "draft", so that's OK then, nothing to see here, it'll probably totally change won't it? No of course it won't!
Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 25th February 11:21
The other one is a pie in the sky prediction which anyone could make up a long way in the future which no one can prove or disprove. It is meaningless drivel.
confused_buyer said:
There is a difference between the two. One is an actual figure which can be argued - usually against - but nonetheless can be analysed in some sort of factual way. We can actually analyse what we send in theory or in practice to the EU and what we get back. Many would argue £350m is misleading but one can come up with one's own figure and back it with actual facts.
The other one is a pie in the sky prediction which anyone could make up a long way in the future which no one can prove or disprove. It is meaningless drivel.
Love it!The other one is a pie in the sky prediction which anyone could make up a long way in the future which no one can prove or disprove. It is meaningless drivel.
One is just a prediction, the other is a flat lie so they are totally different.
That makes a good case for saying the leave campaign was a far bigger liar than the remain campaign. I’d agree with that so thanks for making that argument.
What do you think the margin for error in the underlying changes is? 20%? 50%? So we could be £1000m to £3000m / week worse off. I’d agree the margin could be as wide that. Better off? Rather unlikely when looking at the impact of these trade levers.
Sway - of course there are scales in the nationalistic and Germany runs the EU rhetotic. The fact you brought it up confirms its a perception that is out there and what is more people feel enabled to bring up as an issue all too easily - with Germany as the bogeyman. This is often blown out of all proportion.
No, there are verifiable examples of Germany calling the key elements, as it's the creditor nation for the majority of the rest of the EU.
That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
Sway said:
No, there are verifiable examples of Germany calling the key elements, as it's the creditor nation for the majority of the rest of the EU.
That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
Adding drag to nearly 50% of our trade is not going to make it better. Most agree the impact won’t be anywhere near offset by new US etc. deals.That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
I know you like to bring up Target2, but only the other day you were talking about the recent high EU zone (not UK) growth. Reality does not match much of the scaremongering over the EUs imminent collapse. And if they are collapsing, where does that leave us?
Gloria Slap said:
Adding drag to nearly 50% of our trade is not going to make it better. Most agree the impact won’t be anywhere near offset by new US etc. deals.
I know you like to bring up Target2, but only the other day you were talking about the recent high EU zone (not UK) growth. Reality does not match much of the scaremongering over the EUs imminent collapse. And if they are collapsing, where does that leave us?
Have you had your latest cheque from Soros ???? I know you like to bring up Target2, but only the other day you were talking about the recent high EU zone (not UK) growth. Reality does not match much of the scaremongering over the EUs imminent collapse. And if they are collapsing, where does that leave us?
Gloria Slap said:
Sway said:
No, there are verifiable examples of Germany calling the key elements, as it's the creditor nation for the majority of the rest of the EU.
That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
Adding drag to nearly 50% of our trade is not going to make it better. Most agree the impact won’t be anywhere near offset by new US etc. deals.That's not a 'bogeyman' scenario, merely a recognition that it is not as diplomatic and equitable a club as is often presented.
On the predictions, over 15 years they'd be ecstatic if they could get within 50% margin of error - they often don't get within that over a two year period.
Simple fact is, any prediction over that timeframe could easily be inverted, and end up with a increase in comparable growth of £2bn compared to staying in. It's impossible to prove either way, and are meaningless soundbites.
Oh, and I wonder if they've priced in a Target2 collapse? Or the size of the imbalance in 15 years if not... At current rates, it'll be €9Tn of unsecured debts.
I know you like to bring up Target2, but only the other day you were talking about the recent high EU zone (not UK) growth. Reality does not match much of the scaremongering over the EUs imminent collapse. And if they are collapsing, where does that leave us?
The level of drag is yet to be seen, and it's not held back the RoW trade growing at a faster rate than the EU trade...
I don't recall talking about high EZ growth. I know that if we look at decadal rates, then recent EZ growth merely mitigates many years of much lower growth relative to UK activity.
I'd also seriously question the validity of growth driven by the overt printing of a trillion euros (and no sign of that abating), and nearly €2Tn of hidden monetary creation via lack of monetary transfers under Target2.
I do like to bring up T2, as you have zero answer for how it is sustainable or appropriate to have a scenario where every single EZ export from Germany is paid for by the Bundesbank, and the value gifted to the central bank of the purchasing nation. Please, do let me know how you think there can possibly be a positive outcome from it?
Sway said:
Let's start getting specific - nearly 50% of our external trade. That's a very different number to the one you implied.
The level of drag is yet to be seen, and it's not held back the RoW trade growing at a faster rate than the EU trade...
I don't recall talking about high EZ growth. I know that if we look at decadal rates, then recent EZ growth merely mitigates many years of much lower growth relative to UK activity.
I'd also seriously question the validity of growth driven by the overt printing of a trillion euros (and no sign of that abating), and nearly €2Tn of hidden monetary creation via lack of monetary transfers under Target2.
I do like to bring up T2, as you have zero answer for how it is sustainable or appropriate to have a scenario where every single EZ export from Germany is paid for by the Bundesbank, and the value gifted to the central bank of the purchasing nation. Please, do let me know how you think there can possibly be a positive outcome from it?
Re your last paragraph, I did wonder how Gerrmany supposedely supplies Greece, with the largest Military in the EU, and it apparently costs the Greeks nothing.The level of drag is yet to be seen, and it's not held back the RoW trade growing at a faster rate than the EU trade...
I don't recall talking about high EZ growth. I know that if we look at decadal rates, then recent EZ growth merely mitigates many years of much lower growth relative to UK activity.
I'd also seriously question the validity of growth driven by the overt printing of a trillion euros (and no sign of that abating), and nearly €2Tn of hidden monetary creation via lack of monetary transfers under Target2.
I do like to bring up T2, as you have zero answer for how it is sustainable or appropriate to have a scenario where every single EZ export from Germany is paid for by the Bundesbank, and the value gifted to the central bank of the purchasing nation. Please, do let me know how you think there can possibly be a positive outcome from it?
How can they Germany afford to do this?
Here's two examples - one typical for the entire globe, the other unique to the EZ...
I buy something from you, and transfer some cash into your bank account. No money actually transfers until the end of the day (even though it may 'appear' in your account before then). Instead, what happens is that both our banks have 'clearing accounts' at the BoE. My bank has a minus amount, yours has a plus. At the end of the day, the net balances are calculated, and a single payment is made of the cumulative difference.
This prevents millions of intra-bank transfers.
The EZ is unique, in that there is an extra layer at the top - between Central Banks.
So if we were both in Italy, it would work the same as here.
However, if you were in Germany, and I bought something while based in Italy, here's how it goes:
Money leaves my account, and hits the Italian Central Bank. The Italian Central Bank logs a debt amount to the German Central Bank (who logs a credit amount owed to them by the Italian Central Bank). The German Central Bank puts money into your account held at a German retail bank.
So, money has left my account, and the same amount has landed in your account.
However, under Target2, there is no overnight reconciliation and intra-Central Bank payments. No money is transferred from the Italian Central Bank to the German Central Bank. Italy keeps my money, Germany has invented money to pay you (on the promise that it'll be paid somehow by the Italians).
Yet those debts (or, as they like to call them 'balances') have no requirements to be repaid. The assumption is that eventually, it'll all even out - except that patently isn't the case. Germany sells much more than it buys, and there's no sign of that slowing.
Equally, it's not like the Italian Central Bank is just holding the money - it's being spent at a rate of knots.
In your example Gooner1, it's the Greek government buying stuff from German business - so they're just putting a debt onto their central bank (with no requirement to repay, interest, credit scoring, nothing) and the Bundesbank is 'printing' the money to pay the German arms supplier.
Current debts built up under this system? Well over a trillion euros. Last time I looked it was nearing two trillion...
On top of the couple of trillion of overt QE printed by the ECB.
I buy something from you, and transfer some cash into your bank account. No money actually transfers until the end of the day (even though it may 'appear' in your account before then). Instead, what happens is that both our banks have 'clearing accounts' at the BoE. My bank has a minus amount, yours has a plus. At the end of the day, the net balances are calculated, and a single payment is made of the cumulative difference.
This prevents millions of intra-bank transfers.
The EZ is unique, in that there is an extra layer at the top - between Central Banks.
So if we were both in Italy, it would work the same as here.
However, if you were in Germany, and I bought something while based in Italy, here's how it goes:
Money leaves my account, and hits the Italian Central Bank. The Italian Central Bank logs a debt amount to the German Central Bank (who logs a credit amount owed to them by the Italian Central Bank). The German Central Bank puts money into your account held at a German retail bank.
So, money has left my account, and the same amount has landed in your account.
However, under Target2, there is no overnight reconciliation and intra-Central Bank payments. No money is transferred from the Italian Central Bank to the German Central Bank. Italy keeps my money, Germany has invented money to pay you (on the promise that it'll be paid somehow by the Italians).
Yet those debts (or, as they like to call them 'balances') have no requirements to be repaid. The assumption is that eventually, it'll all even out - except that patently isn't the case. Germany sells much more than it buys, and there's no sign of that slowing.
Equally, it's not like the Italian Central Bank is just holding the money - it's being spent at a rate of knots.
In your example Gooner1, it's the Greek government buying stuff from German business - so they're just putting a debt onto their central bank (with no requirement to repay, interest, credit scoring, nothing) and the Bundesbank is 'printing' the money to pay the German arms supplier.
Current debts built up under this system? Well over a trillion euros. Last time I looked it was nearing two trillion...
On top of the couple of trillion of overt QE printed by the ECB.
Sway said:
Let's start getting specific - nearly 50% of our external trade. That's a very different number to the one you implied.
The level of drag is yet to be seen, and it's not held back the RoW trade growing at a faster rate than the EU trade...
I don't recall talking about high EZ growth. I know that if we look at decadal rates, then recent EZ growth merely mitigates many years of much lower growth relative to UK activity.
I'd also seriously question the validity of growth driven by the overt printing of a trillion euros (and no sign of that abating), and nearly €2Tn of hidden monetary creation via lack of monetary transfers under Target2.
I do like to bring up T2, as you have zero answer for how it is sustainable or appropriate to have a scenario where every single EZ export from Germany is paid for by the Bundesbank, and the value gifted to the central bank of the purchasing nation. Please, do let me know how you think there can possibly be a positive outcome from it?
But it is 50% of all exports (once you strip out gold) - hence when you talk of RoW making up the difference the scale of these opportunities for reducing drag elsewhere to counter increased UK-EU drag is very relevant. Give me three examples of increased trade with RoW that will massively increase over where we are now, and because of which trade deal with who?The level of drag is yet to be seen, and it's not held back the RoW trade growing at a faster rate than the EU trade...
I don't recall talking about high EZ growth. I know that if we look at decadal rates, then recent EZ growth merely mitigates many years of much lower growth relative to UK activity.
I'd also seriously question the validity of growth driven by the overt printing of a trillion euros (and no sign of that abating), and nearly €2Tn of hidden monetary creation via lack of monetary transfers under Target2.
I do like to bring up T2, as you have zero answer for how it is sustainable or appropriate to have a scenario where every single EZ export from Germany is paid for by the Bundesbank, and the value gifted to the central bank of the purchasing nation. Please, do let me know how you think there can possibly be a positive outcome from it?
You mentioned the growth in the EU outstripping ours earlier, and confirm it again above. It is an inconvenient fact that actually is already validating the latest bus numbers - £2000M/week worse off. Brexit features heavily in recent economic issues related to currency, inflation, etc.
How are the EU growing so much more successfully than us if the T2 issue is such a sword of Damocles hanging over the region? This T2 issue appears to be having little real effect.
Sure Greece is not in a good place. Its debt is 2x ours compared to its GDP. But our GDP is 10x theirs, so our debt is actually 5x higher in actual terms.
Italian debt is higher than ours vs GDP, but again our GDP is considerable bigger than theirs so in real terms, so on balance it is similar sized debt risk to the region.
None of this is good, but the Greece situation in particular is not a massive threat given the size of the EU overall, and they are now discussing solutions with the EU.
I'm yet to see any decent predictions for 'drag' reducing trade - so it's difficult to determine what RoW trade growth will be necessary...
I do accept that if we look very recently, the EZ is growing faster than us. Not when we look over a longer average...
Now, tell me why it's not suprising that the EZ economy is growing, when it's creating €4Tn of invented money? Difficult for it not to be growing, but hardly an indication of structural strength.
I do accept that if we look very recently, the EZ is growing faster than us. Not when we look over a longer average...
Now, tell me why it's not suprising that the EZ economy is growing, when it's creating €4Tn of invented money? Difficult for it not to be growing, but hardly an indication of structural strength.
Sway said:
I'm yet to see any decent predictions for 'drag' reducing trade - so it's difficult to determine what RoW trade growth will be necessary...
I do accept that if we look very recently, the EZ is growing faster than us. Not when we look over a longer average...
Now, tell me why it's not suprising that the EZ economy is growing, when it's creating €4Tn of invented money? Difficult for it not to be growing, but hardly an indication of structural strength.
Trade between UK-EU sits at £240Bn/year.I do accept that if we look very recently, the EZ is growing faster than us. Not when we look over a longer average...
Now, tell me why it's not suprising that the EZ economy is growing, when it's creating €4Tn of invented money? Difficult for it not to be growing, but hardly an indication of structural strength.
Leaving the SM/CU seems likely to impact this to some extent. Even at small % the numbers are large.
Leaving a fully free trade, fully harmonised regulatory environment with minimal/nil customs checks is not going to have a positive impact on trade volume, is it? Any extra faff could have a tangible impact in many sectors.
Printing money is not exactly the UK is unfamiliar with, is it? Have we still got ~$0.5Tr of our own QE?
Sway said:
There is a fundamental difference between planned QE as a fiscal policy, and automatic QE as a function of trade....
Look at my explanation of how T2 works. Explain how that can possibly be a good thing - whatabout us is simply not valid, as we have nothing even remotely similar.
I'm not sure T2 balances are the smoking gun you imply. Look at my explanation of how T2 works. Explain how that can possibly be a good thing - whatabout us is simply not valid, as we have nothing even remotely similar.
Look at this FT article from Sep 17
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/09/15/2193775/tar...
This comment below stands out:
"Interesting article.
In of themselves T2 balances are pretty meaningless. Their scale can prompt questions - that the author explores here - but can't provide answers.
The movement of M4 (commercial bank deposits) is more interesting than an incomplete measure of the movement of M0 (central bank money).
Imagine a Greek citizen that works in Berlin for a summer job. At the end of the summer he returns to Greece and deposits €1,000 cash he earned in a Greek bank. He then transfers the €1,000 to an account with a German bank account. As a consequence a T2 debit occurs for T2GR and a credit for T2DE.
What does the resulting T2 balance tell us about the economies of both countries? Nothing."
A couple of quotes you missed:
"I have a confession to make: for many years, I never felt comfortable talking about Target2 balances. Recently, however, I’ve come to think I understand it well enough to express an opinion."
Not particularly confidence inspiring - and the article pretty much solely focuses on T2 as a means of currency pegging, which is to materially misunderstand the mechanisms and rationale.
It's not to enable hard pegging of the Euro across the EZ, it's to ensure the fiscal transfers which are banned under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Then:
"All of this is to say that Target2 balances can be informative about conditions in the euro area if you view them from the perspective of the balance of payments. They reflect the interaction between ECB policy choices and the private sector’s desires. We’ll know the euro crisis has finally ended once those balances drift back down to their pre-crisis levels."
Well, that's not looking good - they are only growing. Strongly implying (if this author is to be believed, and hey, he's in the FT) that the Eurozone crisis is only deepening...
The bit he's completely missing is the fact that balance of payments internally is never going to reach parity - not in several lifetimes. So what mechanism allows T2 balances to be unwound? None. So they keep on growing, and the Bundesbank keeps on gifting the poorer states with every single sale a German business makes to customers in those nations.
How long do you think German voters are going to permit that? Every few months we have debt restructuring, pushing the bonds repayments further down the road. On top of that, there's a constant lack of flow of cash to Germany for the immense trade surplus it runs - and there's no way German industry wants that to stop, as the only means for that is contraction.
Now, feel free to Google your next rebuttal. Next time, perhaps you want to actually address the points raised, rather than those you can find that make it appear to be a non-issue - when even by those links, it clearly is.
Still, top marks for trying - your the first Remain supporter in quite some time to attempt to.
"I have a confession to make: for many years, I never felt comfortable talking about Target2 balances. Recently, however, I’ve come to think I understand it well enough to express an opinion."
Not particularly confidence inspiring - and the article pretty much solely focuses on T2 as a means of currency pegging, which is to materially misunderstand the mechanisms and rationale.
It's not to enable hard pegging of the Euro across the EZ, it's to ensure the fiscal transfers which are banned under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Then:
"All of this is to say that Target2 balances can be informative about conditions in the euro area if you view them from the perspective of the balance of payments. They reflect the interaction between ECB policy choices and the private sector’s desires. We’ll know the euro crisis has finally ended once those balances drift back down to their pre-crisis levels."
Well, that's not looking good - they are only growing. Strongly implying (if this author is to be believed, and hey, he's in the FT) that the Eurozone crisis is only deepening...
The bit he's completely missing is the fact that balance of payments internally is never going to reach parity - not in several lifetimes. So what mechanism allows T2 balances to be unwound? None. So they keep on growing, and the Bundesbank keeps on gifting the poorer states with every single sale a German business makes to customers in those nations.
How long do you think German voters are going to permit that? Every few months we have debt restructuring, pushing the bonds repayments further down the road. On top of that, there's a constant lack of flow of cash to Germany for the immense trade surplus it runs - and there's no way German industry wants that to stop, as the only means for that is contraction.
Now, feel free to Google your next rebuttal. Next time, perhaps you want to actually address the points raised, rather than those you can find that make it appear to be a non-issue - when even by those links, it clearly is.
Still, top marks for trying - your the first Remain supporter in quite some time to attempt to.
Gloria Slap said:
But it is 50% of all exports (once you strip out gold) - hence when you talk of RoW making up the difference the scale of these opportunities for reducing drag elsewhere to counter increased UK-EU drag is very relevant. Give me three examples of increased trade with RoW that will massively increase over where we are now, and because of which trade deal with who?...
You said "trade" previously, which Sway correctly picked you up on. Less than 30% of our GDP is directly attributable to exports (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=GB).And it isn't 50% to the EU. It's 43% (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851). And falling (https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-trade-with-the-eu-and-beyond/ - other charts exist that show the difference over a longer period). No need to exclude anything btw. As your chums in the EU Council would say, that's cherry picking
For your examples, therefore, go and look at the areas of our trade that have prompted the pretty marked shift in the %age split of our trade intra and extra the EU. (The shift isn't simply because we've changed who we sell to/buy from and the overall numbers have remained static... https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/import... / https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/export... ). That's if you really want to look for 3 rather than just accepting the overall numbers across millions of transactions and hundreds if not thousands of business areas
What I'd really like to know is what the economic predictions you hang your hat on say about these trends and how they predict they will go over the next 30yrs...do you know?
What is interesting about T2 is that it provides liquidity to poorer countries, like a zero interest credit card limit, which means they overspend compared to their debt capacity.
Equally, for Germany, it underwrites the trade with poorer countries, meaning more trade than should normally happen, and effectively printing money which goes straight to German manufacturers.
As Sway says, eventually the central Bank balance sheets must break when the amount of printing is recognised.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff