The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[jjlynn27]

PRTVR said:

jjlynn27 said:

PRTVR said:

Government borrowing at lowest September level for 10 years,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41691656

I realize we haven't left yet but should not confidence and spending have fallen massively due to the Brexit effect ?

BBC said:

The ONS said the lower borrowing in September was helped by stronger receipts from VAT, income and the stamp duty property tax, although corporation tax revenues were down slightly on a year ago.
However, Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said lower borrowing was still predominantly driven by spending cuts, not a rebound in tax receipts.

Do you understand things that you are quoting?

I do, but I presumed as we head for the cliff edge things would start to fall apart, cuts or no cuts, increasing vat receipts doesn't point to lack of confidence.

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

[loafer123]

jjlynn27 said:

PRTVR said:

jjlynn27 said:

PRTVR said:

Government borrowing at lowest September level for 10 years,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41691656

I realize we haven't left yet but should not confidence and spending have fallen massively due to the Brexit effect ?

BBC said:

The ONS said the lower borrowing in September was helped by stronger receipts from VAT, income and the stamp duty property tax, although corporation tax revenues were down slightly on a year ago.
However, Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said lower borrowing was still predominantly driven by spending cuts, not a rebound in tax receipts.

Do you understand things that you are quoting?

I do, but I presumed as we head for the cliff edge things would start to fall apart, cuts or no cuts, increasing vat receipts doesn't point to lack of confidence.

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

Or go to the actual ONS release.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsec...

Central Government expenditure is up about £10bn, receipts are up about £12bn in the YTD.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

So you're seeing signs we're dropping off a cliff?

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

So you're seeing signs we're dropping off a cliff?

I'm waiting for you to tell me why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone moron'.

Anything on that or you need more time?

[loafer123]

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

So you're seeing signs we're dropping off a cliff?

I'm waiting for you to tell me why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone moron'.

Anything on that or you need more time?

You’ve repeatedly called me worse.

Try answering the question or responding to the actual data.

[jjlynn27]

loafer123 said:

You’ve repeatedly called me worse.

Try answering the question or responding to the actual data.

When spoken to.

When I make a claim, in your case that you are conspiracy nutjob, I have a proof, in your case BBC screenshot with date and time. You than resorted to lying that they edited the story, forgetting that they have timestamps for edit, which in turn made you a liar too. Yes?



As for the 'question'; do I believe chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics or lying, conspiracy nutjob from PH? It's a tough one.

BBC said:

However, Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said lower borrowing was still predominantly driven by spending cuts, not a rebound in tax receipts.

[loafer123]

jjlynn27 said:

loafer123 said:

You’ve repeatedly called me worse.

Try answering the question or responding to the actual data.

When spoken to.

When I make a claim, in your case that you are conspiracy nutjob, I have a proof, in your case BBC screenshot with date and time. You than resorted to lying that they edited the story, forgetting that they have timestamps for edit, which in turn made you a liar too. Yes?



As for the 'question'; do I believe chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics or lying, conspiracy nutjob from PH? It's a tough one.

BBC said:

However, Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said lower borrowing was still predominantly driven by spending cuts, not a rebound in tax receipts.

I linked you to the official release with the official data.

You are just making yourself look stupid now.

It happens to the best of us, but just step away.

[jjlynn27]

loafer123 said:

jjlynn27 said:

loafer123 said:

You’ve repeatedly called me worse.

Try answering the question or responding to the actual data.

When spoken to.

When I make a claim, in your case that you are conspiracy nutjob, I have a proof, in your case BBC screenshot with date and time. You than resorted to lying that they edited the story, forgetting that they have timestamps for edit, which in turn made you a liar too. Yes?



As for the 'question'; do I believe chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics or lying, conspiracy nutjob from PH? It's a tough one.

BBC said:

However, Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said lower borrowing was still predominantly driven by spending cuts, not a rebound in tax receipts.

I linked you to the official release with the official data.

You are just making yourself look stupid now.

It happens to the best of us, but just step away.

It's actually entertaining, that after all that you still think that you, confirmed conspiracy nutjob, understand figures better than chief economist at PM. Seriously, have a quiet word with yourself.

As for the link; just first 2 bullet points, that you, quite obviously, didn't understand;

ONS said:

• Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £2.5 billion to £32.5 billion in the current financial year-to-date (April 2017 to September 2017), compared with the same period in 2016; this is the lowest year-to-date net borrowing since 2007.
• Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £0.7 billion to £5.9 billion in September 2017, compared with September 2016; this is the lowest September net borrowing since 2007.

Now, jog on, and find another story that BBC is trying to hide from you, by posting it on the front page.

[loafer123]

[PRTVR]

loafer123 said:

Can anyone explain how the top economist arrived at his conclusion from the data above?
Spending up tax ,receipts up, where are the cuts ?

[barryrs]

With the recent inflation rises I’m sure some will claim “real terms” cuts

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

So you're seeing signs we're dropping off a cliff?

I'm waiting for you to tell me why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone moron'.

Anything on that or you need more time?

I think you need to read the thread again - you may have missed the part where I clarified that you call people morons one at a time Not sure why you should be so upset about it though.

Now, about that question... dropping off a cliff?

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

I don't think that you do. Read that again.

So you're seeing signs we're dropping off a cliff?

I'm waiting for you to tell me why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone moron'.

Anything on that or you need more time?

I think you need to read the thread again - you may have missed the part where I clarified that you call people morons one at a time

No.

This is what you said;

Tuna said:

Forgive me though, your posting style (particularly the frequent suggestion that everyone else is a moron)

'Everyone else' is pretty self-explanatory, as much as it is demonstrably your invention.

So, once again, why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone' moron? 'One at the time' is just exceptionally poor attempt at diversion, even if true it's most definitely not 'everyone'.

Tuna said:

Not sure why you should be so upset about it though.

I don't think that you are stupid enough to actually believe that I'd be upset by that. So that leads to two possibilities;

a) I'm wrong about you.

b) You don't actually believe that but you are still saying it in order to divert from 'everyone' fiasco.

who said this while counting who said what on a NPE part of the car forum said:

On the other hand there were twice as many cases where posters claimed the other side was 'angry', 'upset' or 'frustrated' - all of them accusations by Remain supporters.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

This is what you said;

Tuna said:

Forgive me though, your posting style (particularly the frequent suggestion that everyone else is a moron)

'Everyone else' is pretty self-explanatory, as much as it is demonstrably your invention.

So, once again, why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone' moron? 'One at the time' is just exceptionally poor attempt at diversion, even if true it's most definitely not 'everyone'.

Thanks for going hunting for that quote, I'll confess I didn't check it. Certainly it was meant in the spirit that your posting style is aggressive and the impression you leave me is that you intellectually belittle people you disagree with. And you disagree with a lot of people.

So you're right, not everyone. I apologise for giving that impression.

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

Not sure why you should be so upset about it though.

I don't think that you are stupid enough to actually believe that I'd be upset by that. So that leads to two possibilities;

a) I'm wrong about you.

Can't possibly be that, could it? That'd make me a moron.

jjlynn27 said:

b) You don't actually believe that but you are still saying it in order to divert from 'everyone' fiasco.

who said this while counting who said what on a NPE part of the car forum said:

On the other hand there were twice as many cases where posters claimed the other side was 'angry', 'upset' or 'frustrated' - all of them accusations by Remain supporters.

Hoist by my own petard No diversion, and no apologies either. By going back over two threads to pick out quotes, you really are leaving me with the impression you're upset. Or a bit obsessive. Or waiting for a curry to arrive. I'm not sure anyone actually cares which.

So, now we know where we stand... have you come up with an answer to the cliff edge thing yet?

[loafer123]

He does it a lot.

By contrast, when people call out the ridiculous nature of his own statements, he makes himself scarce.

[KrissKross]

I don't come here much any more because of jj, slasher and the like. They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago. Look at the volume of posts 24/7 (do they work in the real world?) the absolute bullying of anyone who disagrees with their intellectual superiority is unhealthy.

[Digga]

KrissKross said:

I don't come here much any more because of jj, slasher and the like. They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago. Look at the volume of posts 24/7 (do they work in the real world?) the absolute bullying of anyone who disagrees with their intellectual superiority is unhealthy.

I've come to a similar conclusion. I am not even sure some of these user accounts are actually 'manned' by the same person either - as well as their ever-present posting ability, there are curious changes in posting styles.

I am all for debate, but the blanket spambot trolling on NP&E is nothing of the sort.

[loafer123]

The most recent addition is MX5nut

Despite being a self-named car nut he has never posted in one of the car forums, 80% of his posts are about Brexit, and the rest are single posts on random threads.

If I were to set parameters on how to set up a troll account, that is roughly what I would do.

[Eddie Strohacker]

KrissKross said:

They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago.

I'm going to stick my neck out here & suggest you might not be able to substantiate that. In a month of Sundays


Also, whining baby.

[Smiler.]

Tuna said:

Hoist by my own petard No diversion, and no apologies either. By going back over two threads to pick out quotes, you really are leaving me with the impression you're upset. Or a bit obsessive. Or waiting for a curry to arrive. I'm not sure anyone actually cares which.

So, now we know where we stand... have you come up with an answer to the cliff edge thing yet?

She doesn't get annoyed, it's all for her own amusement you see.

And if you hit that special ratio of engaging/not engaging, she'll label you a stalker.

She must find it hilarious, which possibly explains the ubiquitous use of the rofl.

The price of freedom of speech.

Ho hum