UK manufacturing output at its highest for 10 years

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since early
2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth in November.
Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and cars for export helped
make output 3.9% higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-10 18:13:35 UTC

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

Head in the clouds again I see. So, provide proof for this stupid statement of yours.

--
Foreploy (v): Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

Vidcapper

2018-01-11 07:10:33 UTC

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

Head in the clouds again I see. So, provide proof for this stupid statement of yours.

Whooosh...

--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Bod

2018-01-11 07:23:37 UTC

Post by Vidcapper

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

Head in the clouds again I see. So, provide proof for this stupid
statement of yours.

Whooosh...

Indeed.
Also added to that:

'UK firms hire permanent staff at fastest rate in four months - recruiters'

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-jobs-markit/uk-firms-hire-permanent-staff-at-fastest-rate-in-four-months-recruiters-idUKKBN1EY03N

--
Bod

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-11 18:34:07 UTC

Post by Vidcapper

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

Head in the clouds again I see. So, provide proof for this stupid statement of yours.

Whooosh...

Waiting for proof....

--
When eating a tongue sandwich, how do you know when you've finished?

James Harris

2018-01-10 19:50:31 UTC

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

You mean if the pound were still overvalued...?

--
James Harris

FMurtz

2018-01-11 09:52:37 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since early
2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth in November.
Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and cars for export
helped make output 3.9% higher in the three months to November than in
2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

And just imagine how much bigger all these increases woud have been if
it weren't for Brexit.

Mr Pounder Esquire

2018-01-10 19:22:25 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since early
2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth in
November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and cars for
export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three months to November
than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

Tell your shit to the poor sods using food banks. Or to the poor sods that
can't get a job. You have not worked for at least 18 years, best you stfu.
You do live in your own little shit southern bubble. This nation is fucked
and has been since WW2.
Best you just fuck off back to alt.home.repair and spout your shit there.
Even that lot have got wise to your shit.
You really have become one boring cunt.

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-10 19:42:45 UTC

Post by Mr Pounder Esquire

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since early
2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth in
November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and cars for
export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three months to November
than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

You've changed your tune. So now you believe those with no money haven't caused it themselves?

--
"Dear IRS: I would like to cancel my subscription. Please remove my name from your mailing list." -- Joe Cocker

The Peeler

2018-01-10 20:37:59 UTC

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:42:45 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

Post by Mr Pounder Esquire
Tell your shit to the poor sods using food banks. Or to the poor sods that
can't get a job. You have not worked for at least 18 years, best you stfu.
You do live in your own little shit southern bubble. This nation is fucked
and has been since WW2.
Best you just fuck off back to alt.home.repair and spout your shit there.
Even that lot have got wise to your shit.
You really have become one boring cunt.

You've changed your tune. So now you believe those with no money haven't
caused it themselves?

Blathering idiot!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "deep thinking":
"And most people are sensible enough not to breathe in underwater."
MID: <***@red.lan>

pamela

2018-01-10 19:36:05 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth
in November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and
cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three
months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer? The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and they
love that. But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds domestic
goods have essentially not changed in price.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-10 19:43:53 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth
in November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and
cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three
months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

Yawn, who cares?

--
Then there was the Eskimo girl who spent the night with her
boyfriend and next morning found she was six months pregnant.

The Peeler

2018-01-10 20:38:08 UTC

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:43:53 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

Post by pamela
How does that help the British consumer? The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and they
love that. But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds domestic
goods have essentially not changed in price.

Yawn, who cares?

Stupid wanker! <tsk>
--
francis about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c-800a-***@googlegroups.com>

--
Peter Moylan about Birdbrain (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"If people like JWS didn't exist, we would have to find some other way to
explain the concept of "invincible ignorance"."
MID: <otofc8$tbg$***@dont-email.me>

James Harris

2018-01-10 20:39:27 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth
in November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and
cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three
months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people and can pay
them higher wages. More economic activity leads to the government
receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit can be reduced and
eventually even the debt burden that hangs around the necks of our
children can begin to be tackled.

If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual tax revenue
changes in Fig 4 at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668983/Nov17_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf

Note how each year the revenue has been increasing - and is continuing
to do so. If this goes on much longer the economy will be well on the
way to recovery.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and they
love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Post by pamela
But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds domestic
goods have essentially not changed in price.

Foreign goods and foreign holidays are more expensive. You don't get owt
for nowt. Why not spend here instead?

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-10 22:48:02 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people and
can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a business
owner would do.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the
government receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit can be
reduced and eventually even the debt burden that hangs around
the necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual tax
revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way. In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's £40 billion.

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_d
ata/file/668983/Nov17_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
Note how each year the revenue has been increasing - and is
continuing to do so. If this goes on much longer the economy
will be well on the way to recovery.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and
they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to buy.

Post by pamela
But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds
domestic goods have essentially not changed in price.

Foreign goods and foreign holidays are more expensive. You don't
get owt for nowt. Why not spend here instead?

Making goods in Britain is not a sure-fire recipe for quality
products. As British manufacturers make easy sales to a captive
doemstic market they will realise they an increase their prices
even if they don't increase quality. It's back to the seventies.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-10 22:52:29 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people and
can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a business
owner would do.

How can not paying EU fees to fund losers like Greece cost us money?

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and
they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to buy.

Not from China they ain't.

Post by pamela
But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds
domestic goods have essentially not changed in price.

Foreign goods and foreign holidays are more expensive. You don't
get owt for nowt. Why not spend here instead?

Good. I liked the 70s.

-- =

Disk Full - Press F1 to belch.

James Harris

2018-01-10 23:13:06 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people and
can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a business
owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With current interest
rates?

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic activity
ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's £40 billion.

You do realise that the £40bn is money we would pay whether we stayed in
or left, don't you?

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply and
they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of competitiveness is
being adjusted. That's all. British goods and services and hospitality
have become more competitive.

Post by pamela
But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds
domestic goods have essentially not changed in price.

Foreign goods and foreign holidays are more expensive. You don't
get owt for nowt. Why not spend here instead?

There won't be a captive market.

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-10 23:24:28 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month
of growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9%
higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people
and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With current
interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign holidays
will cost more but his easy sales overseas will cover that. Isn't
he lucky?

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the
government receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit can
be reduced and eventually even the debt burden that hangs
around the necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual
tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain immigration
from the rest of the world or from former Imperial possessions.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's Â£40 billion.

You do realise that the Â£40bn is money we would pay whether we
stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will offset
the UK's membership costs against it. It is for future
liabilities not current costs.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply
and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to
buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

Post by James Harris
That's all. British goods and
services and hospitality have become more competitive.

Post by pamela
But what about the British consumer who finds he or she
now has to pay more for foerign goods and who also finds
domestic goods have essentially not changed in price.

Foreign goods and foreign holidays are more expensive. You
don't get owt for nowt. Why not spend here instead?

Making goods in Britain is not a sure-fire recipe for quality
products. As British manufacturers make easy sales to a
captive doemstic market they will realise they an increase
their prices even if they don't increase quality. It's back to
the seventies.

There won't be a captive market.

Remeber all those little Union Jacks stuck on the schlock we used
to make? I'm backing Britain. How some people tried back then to
pretend Japanese goods were all tinny crap.

In the end the Japanese showed what true quality manufacturing
really was and consumers loved their products because they didn't
break down frequently like British goods would.

Consumers want a level playing field and are not interested in
subsidising uneconomic domestic jobs.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-11 07:26:45 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month
of growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9%
higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people
and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With current
interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign holidays
will cost more but his easy sales overseas will cover that. Isn't
he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they have a
chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to do so. I'd be
surprised if many of them started spending money on the boss's luxuries.
Those that did would fall back.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the
government receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit can
be reduced and eventually even the debt burden that hangs
around the necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual
tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain immigration
from the rest of the world or from former Imperial possessions.

You must really hate this country!

Post by pamela
In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's Â£40 billion.

You do realise that the Â£40bn is money we would pay whether we
stayed in or left, don't you?

Any legitimate part is for prior commitments. Even if you don't believe
the £40bn is all legitimate you know that its what we would pay every 4
years we remain EU members. In simple terms, the government has agreed
to pay our membership fee to 2023 but no more. The end is, at last, in
sight.

The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as some
deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply
and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to
buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods will be
more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are still not being "told
what to buy".

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-11 14:57:45 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive
month of growth in November. Renewable energy projects,
boats, aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output
3.9% higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people
and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With current
interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign holidays
will cost more but his easy sales overseas will cover that.
Isn't he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they have
a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to do so. I'd
be surprised if many of them started spending money on the
boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce. Business
is littered with egregious example of this.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the
government receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit
can be reduced and eventually even the debt burden that
hangs around the necks of our children can begin to be
tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual
tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain
immigration from the rest of the world or from former Imperial
possessions.

You must really hate this country!

It's the underving chain immigrants I have reservations about, not
this country.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's ÃÂ£40 billion.

You do realise that the ÃÂ£40bn is money we would pay whether
we stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will
offset the UK's membership costs against it. It is for future
liabilities not current costs.

Any legitimate part is for prior commitments. Even if you don't
believe the £40bn is all legitimate you know that its what we
would pay every 4 years we remain EU members. In simple terms,
the government has agreed to pay our membership fee to 2023 but
no more. The end is, at last, in sight.

With that logic we could make almost any payment and, accoridng to
you, it woul dnot cost us any more. As I said the source of that
fuding and any offsetting is not decided and was deliberately
fudged to allow the negotiations to proceed to the next stage.
There is no agrement at all to offset our membership dues against
what has been agreed by both sides is approx £40 billion.

Post by James Harris
The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as some
deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

I believe it will be additional which s why barnier asked for
explicit accaptance of it in principle.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply
and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods
will be more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are still
not being "told what to buy".

Who says consumers are told what to buy. They will find some
goods they used to be able to afford have now become unaffordable.

Sadly, rising exports are a reflection of how much faster than the
UK the rest of the world has been growing and can afford to buy
our good but not the other way around.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-11 17:05:07 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive
month of growth in November. Renewable energy projects,
boats, aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output
3.9% higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more people
and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With current
interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign holidays
will cost more but his easy sales overseas will cover that.
Isn't he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they have
a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to do so. I'd
be surprised if many of them started spending money on the
boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce. Business
is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the workforce.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the
government receiving more tax revenue meaning the deficit
can be reduced and eventually even the debt burden that
hangs around the necks of our children can begin to be
tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the annual
tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will not
increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain
immigration from the rest of the world or from former Imperial
possessions.

You must really hate this country!

It's the underving chain immigrants I have reservations about, not
this country.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to
make up a shortfall in public finances created by the cost of
Brexit's Ã‚Â£40 billion.

You do realise that the Ã‚Â£40bn is money we would pay whether
we stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will
offset the UK's membership costs against it. It is for future
liabilities not current costs.

Any legitimate part is for prior commitments. Even if you don't
believe the £40bn is all legitimate you know that its what we
would pay every 4 years we remain EU members. In simple terms,
the government has agreed to pay our membership fee to 2023 but
no more. The end is, at last, in sight.

I read that May has agreed to pay over the nominally two-year
implementation period, and another £20bn-ish on top for RAL commitments
- _all_ of which we would pay if we were to Remain.

But if we were to Remain such payments would be ongoing (and increasing)
with no end in sight. Even with the "settlement" we are set to save.

Post by James Harris
The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as some
deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

I believe it will be additional which s why barnier asked for
explicit accaptance of it in principle.

It may be "additional" for some definition thereof but it is still
equivalent to a certain period (about 4 yrs) of membership fees. The
pennies don't care how they are labelled.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means
Foreigners can now afford to buy our products more cheaply
and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money than
British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods
will be more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are still
not being "told what to buy".

Who says consumers are told what to buy.

That was your phrase.

Post by pamela
They will find some
goods they used to be able to afford have now become unaffordable.
Sadly, rising exports are a reflection of how much faster than the
UK the rest of the world has been growing and can afford to buy
our good but not the other way around.

Eh? In the latest figures the trade gap narrowed.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/november2017

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-11 19:24:46 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive
month of growth in November. Renewable energy projects,
boats, aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output
3.9% higher in the three months to November than in
2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more
people and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With
current interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign
holidays will cost more but his easy sales overseas will
cover that. Isn't he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they
have a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to do
so. I'd be surprised if many of them started spending money on
the boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce. Business
is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the workforce.

Having a new Jag is better than either. In one family firm I know
all family members have a Mercedes except one who like a Lexus.
They share the Ferrari because no one wants to drive it every day
as it is so impractical. The Rolls is also shared but kept for
special occassions. If the firm makes more money they will get
nicer cars. Don't ask about the houses.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the government receiving
more tax revenue meaning the deficit can be reduced and
eventually even the debt burden that hangs around the
necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the
annual tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will
not increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain
immigration from the rest of the world or from former
Imperial possessions.

You must really hate this country!

It's the underving chain immigrants I have reservations about,
not this country.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to make up a shortfall in public finances
created by the cost of Brexit's ÃâÃÂ£40 billion.

You do realise that the ÃâÃÂ£40bn is money we would pay
whether we stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will
offset the UK's membership costs against it. It is for
future liabilities not current costs.

Any legitimate part is for prior commitments. Even if you
don't believe the Â£40bn is all legitimate you know that its
what we would pay every 4 years we remain EU members. In
simple terms, the government has agreed to pay our membership
fee to 2023 but no more. The end is, at last, in sight.

With that logic we could make almost any payment and, accoridng
to you, it woul dnot cost us any more. As I said the source of
that fuding and any offsetting is not decided and was
deliberately fudged to allow the negotiations to proceed to the
next stage. There is no agrement at all to offset our
membership dues against what has been agreed by both sides is
approx Â£40 billion.

I read that May has agreed to pay over the nominally two-year
implementation period, and another £20bn-ish on top for RAL
commitments - _all_ of which we would pay if we were to Remain.
But if we were to Remain such payments would be ongoing (and
increasing) with no end in sight. Even with the "settlement" we
are set to save.

Various ideas were floated but none agreed to. The EU wanted the
UK to accept the divorce payment in principle and also that it was
about £40 billion. The payment is not for recurring membership
fees but for future committments the UK entered into. The UK
wants to stay on for a tranisition period and that too was costed.
This gives the EU a lot of slack to fudge an agreement by making
concessions not to extract all these payments if the UK conducts
itself properly in the negotiations.

Post by James Harris
The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as
some deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

I believe it will be additional which s why barnier asked for
explicit accaptance of it in principle.

It may be "additional" for some definition thereof but it is
still equivalent to a certain period (about 4 yrs) of membership
fees. The pennies don't care how they are labelled.

The equivalence is irrelevant. The £40 billion is also equivalent
to some fraction of the EU's budget but why would an arcane
connection like any of these make any difference?

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_d
ata/file/668983/Nov17_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
Note how each year the revenue has been increasing - and
is continuing to do so. If this goes on much longer the
economy will be well on the way to recovery.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means Foreigners can now afford to
buy our products more cheaply and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money
than British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told
what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods
will be more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are
still not being "told what to buy".

Who says consumers are told what to buy.

That was your phrase.

Post by pamela
They will find some goods they used to be able to afford have
now become unaffordable.
Sadly, rising exports are a reflection of how much faster than
the UK the rest of the world has been growing and can afford to
buy our good but not the other way around.

Eh? In the latest figures the trade gap narrowed.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments
/bulletins/uktrade/november2017

On 1st Jan 2018, the FT writes:

"The UK will remain a relative laggard among developed
countries this year as the after-effects of the Brexit
referendum mean the economy will only enjoy limited benefits
from a global upswing in growth, economists said in the FTs
annual survey of the profession"

A rising tide lifts all boats but the UK has risen less than the
average. No doubt the Express will now rejoice as the modest rise
and declare it to be utterly stunning while not mentioning how other
countries have fared.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-11 21:31:36 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive
month of growth in November. Renewable energy projects,
boats, aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output
3.9% higher in the three months to November than in
2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more
people and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With
current interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign
holidays will cost more but his easy sales overseas will
cover that. Isn't he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they
have a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to do
so. I'd be surprised if many of them started spending money on
the boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce. Business
is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the workforce.

An anecdote about the cars one family has is not in any way a reflection
of the conditions most businesses have to face or how they would react
to opportunities to expand. I might as well tell you that a neighbour
across the road leaves his garden untidy so that proves that Britain's
neighbours don't know how to look after gardens. It's nonsense. One
example does not a rule make.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the government receiving
more tax revenue meaning the deficit can be reduced and
eventually even the debt burden that hangs around the
necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the
annual tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will
not increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain
immigration from the rest of the world or from former
Imperial possessions.

You must really hate this country!

It's the underving chain immigrants I have reservations about,
not this country.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to make up a shortfall in public finances
created by the cost of Brexit's Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£40 billion.

You do realise that the Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£40bn is money we would pay
whether we stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will
offset the UK's membership costs against it. It is for
future liabilities not current costs.

With that logic we could make almost any payment and, accoridng
to you, it woul dnot cost us any more. As I said the source of
that fuding and any offsetting is not decided and was
deliberately fudged to allow the negotiations to proceed to the
next stage. There is no agrement at all to offset our
membership dues against what has been agreed by both sides is
approx Â£40 billion.

I read that May has agreed to pay over the nominally two-year
implementation period, and another £20bn-ish on top for RAL
commitments - _all_ of which we would pay if we were to Remain.
But if we were to Remain such payments would be ongoing (and
increasing) with no end in sight. Even with the "settlement" we
are set to save.

Sure. But that doesn't contradict what I said so I'm not sure what point
you are making.

I think it may be best to agree to disagree. I cannot see logic in your
arguments and you've said you don't see mine.

Post by James Harris
The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as
some deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

I believe it will be additional which s why barnier asked for
explicit accaptance of it in principle.

It may be "additional" for some definition thereof but it is
still equivalent to a certain period (about 4 yrs) of membership
fees. The pennies don't care how they are labelled.

The equivalence is irrelevant. The £40 billion is also equivalent
to some fraction of the EU's budget but why would an arcane
connection like any of these make any difference?

It's the total cost which matters.

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_d
ata/file/668983/Nov17_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
Note how each year the revenue has been increasing - and
is continuing to do so. If this goes on much longer the
economy will be well on the way to recovery.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means Foreigners can now afford to
buy our products more cheaply and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money
than British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told
what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods
will be more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are
still not being "told what to buy".

Who says consumers are told what to buy.

That was your phrase.

Post by pamela
They will find some goods they used to be able to afford have
now become unaffordable.
Sadly, rising exports are a reflection of how much faster than
the UK the rest of the world has been growing and can afford to
buy our good but not the other way around.

Eh? In the latest figures the trade gap narrowed.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments
/bulletins/uktrade/november2017

"The UK will remain a relative laggard among developed
countries this year as the after-effects of the Brexit
referendum mean the economy will only enjoy limited benefits
from a global upswing in growth, economists said in the FT’s
annual survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-11 22:11:49 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest
rate since early 2008 after recording a seventh
consecutive month of growth in November. Renewable
energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and cars for export
helped make output 3.9% higher in the three months to
November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

As British businesses take in money they employ more
people and can pay them higher wages.

Or a business can take more profit. It's obvious what a
business owner would do.

You think they would stash it all away in a bank? With
current interest rates?

A new jag for the boss, more likely. Also his foreign
holidays will cost more but his easy sales overseas will
cover that. Isn't he lucky?

Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they
have a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to
do so. I'd be surprised if many of them started spending
money on the boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall
back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce.
Business is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the workforce.

Having a new Jag is better than either. In one family firm I
know all family members have a Mercedes except one who like a
Lexus. They share the Ferrari because no one wants to drive it
every day as it is so impractical. The Rolls is also shared
but kept for special occassions. If the firm makes more money
they will get nicer cars. Don't ask about the houses.

An anecdote about the cars one family has is not in any way a
reflection of the conditions most businesses have to face or how
they would react to opportunities to expand. I might as well
tell you that a neighbour across the road leaves his garden
untidy so that proves that Britain's neighbours don't know how
to look after gardens. It's nonsense. One example does not a
rule make.

The anecdote does not create the rule. The anecdote illustrates
an already existing truism.

If a company is very profitable the director, who may also be
shareholders, can award themselves very generous bonuses. This
got very out of hand in the US to the point where directors' or
chief officer bonuses sucked up a considerable slice of a
company's surplus.

Post by James Harris
More economic activity leads to the government receiving
more tax revenue meaning the deficit can be reduced and
eventually even the debt burden that hangs around the
necks of our children can begin to be tackled.
If anyone doubts what's happening take a look at the
annual tax revenue changes in Fig 4 at

The taxman does not employ people. His greater take will
not increase jobs except in the most indirect way.

He doesn't have to. Taxes he gets from increased economic
activity ultimately reduces the taxes we all have to pay.

Or goes to hiding government waste or paying for chain
immigration from the rest of the world or from former
Imperial possessions.

You must really hate this country!

It's the underving chain immigrants I have reservations
about, not this country.

Post by pamela
In fact he has to make up a shortfall in public finances
created by the cost of Brexit's ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£40
billion.

You do realise that the ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£40bn is money
we would pay whether we stayed in or left, don't you?

It s only that if false account is applied. It is an extra
payment and it has not been agreed by the EU that they will
offset the UK's membership costs against it. It is for
future liabilities not current costs.

Any legitimate part is for prior commitments. Even if you
don't believe the ÃÂ£40bn is all legitimate you know that
its what we would pay every 4 years we remain EU members. In
simple terms, the government has agreed to pay our
membership fee to 2023 but no more. The end is, at last, in
sight.

With that logic we could make almost any payment and,
accoridng to you, it woul dnot cost us any more. As I said
the source of that fuding and any offsetting is not decided
and was deliberately fudged to allow the negotiations to
proceed to the next stage. There is no agrement at all to
offset our membership dues against what has been agreed by
both sides is approx ÃÂ£40 billion.

I read that May has agreed to pay over the nominally two-year
implementation period, and another Â£20bn-ish on top for RAL
commitments - _all_ of which we would pay if we were to
Remain.
But if we were to Remain such payments would be ongoing (and
increasing) with no end in sight. Even with the "settlement"
we are set to save.

Various ideas were floated but none agreed to. The EU wanted
the UK to accept the divorce payment in principle and also that
it was about Â£40 billion. The payment is not for recurring
membership fees but for future committments the UK entered
into. The UK wants to stay on for a tranisition period and
that too was costed.
This gives the EU a lot of slack to fudge an agreement by
making
concessions not to extract all these payments if the UK
conducts itself properly in the negotiations.

Sure. But that doesn't contradict what I said so I'm not sure
what point you are making.

I explained why your assumption is wrong that the £40 billion will
be paid off in any substantial part by our future EU membership
fees.

Post by James Harris
I think it may be best to agree to disagree. I cannot see logic
in your arguments and you've said you don't see mine.

Post by James Harris
The money is certainly not an additional cost of Brexit as
some deceptive politicians have been trying to imply.

I believe it will be additional which s why barnier asked for
explicit accaptance of it in principle.

It may be "additional" for some definition thereof but it is
still equivalent to a certain period (about 4 yrs) of
membership fees. The pennies don't care how they are labelled.

The equivalence is irrelevant. The £40 billion is also
equivalent to some fraction of the EU's budget but why would an
arcane connection like any of these make any difference?

It's the total cost which matters.

Total cost matters and it is greater than £40 billion. The £40
billion is only the divorce payment part for future liabilities
which the UK committed to whilst a member and which are still
being and will be undertaken.

Post by James Harris
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_d
ata/file/668983/Nov17_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
Note how each year the revenue has been increasing - and
is continuing to do so. If this goes on much longer the
economy will be well on the way to recovery.

Post by pamela
The fall in the pound means Foreigners can now afford
to buy our products more cheaply and they love that.

So they spend here. That's a good thing.

Foreign goods may be superior or better value for money
than British ones. Consumers want freedom not being told
what to buy.

Consumers are not told what to buy. The balance of
competitiveness is being adjusted.

Which is doublespeak for foreign goods will become less
affordable.

EU goods will be less affordable and some non-EU world goods
will be more affordable. It's a balance. But consumers are
still not being "told what to buy".

Who says consumers are told what to buy.

That was your phrase.

Post by pamela
They will find some goods they used to be able to afford have
now become unaffordable.
Sadly, rising exports are a reflection of how much faster
than the UK the rest of the world has been growing and can
afford to buy our good but not the other way around.

Eh? In the latest figures the trade gap narrowed.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/
balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/november2017

"The UK will remain a relative laggard among developed
countries this year as the after-effects of the Brexit
referendum mean the economy will only enjoy limited
benefits from a global upswing in growth, economists said
in the FT's annual survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to come. The
forecast extrapolates the baseline you are referring to. It shows
it expects more of the same of what has recently occurred. Viz, a
laggard UK in a world of better performance.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-11 22:30:05 UTC

...

Post by James Harris
Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now they
have a chance to make money again they'd be foolish not to
do so. I'd be surprised if many of them started spending
money on the boss's luxuries. Those that did would fall
back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit to
himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce.
Business is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the workforce.

Having a new Jag is better than either. In one family firm I
know all family members have a Mercedes except one who like a
Lexus. They share the Ferrari because no one wants to drive it
every day as it is so impractical. The Rolls is also shared
but kept for special occassions. If the firm makes more money
they will get nicer cars. Don't ask about the houses.

An anecdote about the cars one family has is not in any way a
reflection of the conditions most businesses have to face or how
they would react to opportunities to expand. I might as well
tell you that a neighbour across the road leaves his garden
untidy so that proves that Britain's neighbours don't know how
to look after gardens. It's nonsense. One example does not a
rule make.

The anecdote does not create the rule. The anecdote illustrates
an already existing truism.
If a company is very profitable the director, who may also be
shareholders, can award themselves very generous bonuses. This
got very out of hand in the US to the point where directors' or
chief officer bonuses sucked up a considerable slice of a
company's surplus.

Yes, though it is unlikely to reflect the trading conditions of most
British businesses. I suggest that after years of poor trading
conditions they will make hay while the sun is shining.

...

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among developed
countries this year as the after-effects of the Brexit
referendum mean the economy will only enjoy limited
benefits from a global upswing in growth, economists said
in the FT's annual survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have produced
very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what the future holds.
Projecting history - even recent history - is unreliable.

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-11 22:48:05 UTC

Post by James Harris
Well, firms have been subdued for the last decade. Now
they have a chance to make money again they'd be foolish
not to do so. I'd be surprised if many of them started
spending money on the boss's luxuries. Those that did
would fall back.

I have never met a boss who would willingly forego profit
to himself in favour of distributing it to the workforce.
Business is littered with egregious example of this.

Developing the business is not distributing to the
workforce.

Having a new Jag is better than either. In one family firm I
know all family members have a Mercedes except one who like a
Lexus. They share the Ferrari because no one wants to drive
it every day as it is so impractical. The Rolls is also
shared but kept for special occassions. If the firm makes
more money they will get nicer cars. Don't ask about the
houses.

An anecdote about the cars one family has is not in any way a
reflection of the conditions most businesses have to face or
how they would react to opportunities to expand. I might as
well tell you that a neighbour across the road leaves his
garden untidy so that proves that Britain's neighbours don't
know how to look after gardens. It's nonsense. One example
does not a rule make.

The anecdote does not create the rule. The anecdote
illustrates an already existing truism.
If a company is very profitable the director, who may also be
shareholders, can award themselves very generous bonuses. This
got very out of hand in the US to the point where directors' or
chief officer bonuses sucked up a considerable slice of a
company's surplus.

Yes, though it is unlikely to reflect the trading conditions of
most British businesses. I suggest that after years of poor
trading conditions they will make hay while the sun is shining.
...

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to come.
The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are referring to.
It shows it expects more of the same of what has recently
occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what the
future holds. Projecting history - even recent history - is
unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does nt
mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.

Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time but
he stands a far better chance of being closer to the outcome than
someone relying on a random number generator.

It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against the
bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy. The
bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to Bangor
which might tell you some predictions are better than others.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-12 17:23:43 UTC

...

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to come.
The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are referring to.
It shows it expects more of the same of what has recently
occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what the
future holds. Projecting history - even recent history - is
unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does nt
mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time but
he stands a far better chance of being closer to the outcome than
someone relying on a random number generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against the
bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy. The
bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to Bangor
which might tell you some predictions are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off topic. Two things
are happening here.

1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but naively, and
missing useful components, e.g. they are working from incomplete data or
not taking into account enough circumstances.

2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced dishonestly by people
who let their biasses guide their inputs so that the outputs favour
their preconceptions.

It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such forecasts.

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-12 21:48:48 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the after-effects of
the Brexit referendum mean the economy will only
enjoy limited benefits from a global upswing in
growth, economists said in the FT's annual survey of
the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to come.
The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are referring to.
It shows it expects more of the same of what has recently
occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of better
performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what the
future holds. Projecting history - even recent history - is
unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does nt
mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time
but he stands a far better chance of being closer to the
outcome than someone relying on a random number generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against the
bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy. The
bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to Bangor
which might tell you some predictions are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off topic.
Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are working
from incomplete data or not taking into account enough
circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced dishonestly
by people who let their biasses guide their inputs so that the
outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base data
extrapolated correctly.

Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-12 23:51:21 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the after-effects of
the Brexit referendum mean the economy will only
enjoy limited benefits from a global upswing in
growth, economists said in the FT's annual survey of
the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to come.
The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are referring to.
It shows it expects more of the same of what has recently
occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of better
performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what the
future holds. Projecting history - even recent history - is
unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does nt
mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time
but he stands a far better chance of being closer to the
outcome than someone relying on a random number generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against the
bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy. The
bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to Bangor
which might tell you some predictions are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off topic.
Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are working
from incomplete data or not taking into account enough
circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced dishonestly
by people who let their biasses guide their inputs so that the
outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base data
extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-13 11:30:46 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the after-effects
of the Brexit referendum mean the economy will
only enjoy limited benefits from a global upswing
in growth, economists said in the FT's annual
survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is
important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to
come. The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are
referring to. It shows it expects more of the same of what
has recently occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of
better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what
the future holds. Projecting history - even recent history -
is unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does
nt mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time
but he stands a far better chance of being closer to the
outcome than someone relying on a random number generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against
the bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy.
The bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to
Bangor which might tell you some predictions are better than
others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off topic.
Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are working
from incomplete data or not taking into account enough
circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced dishonestly
by people who let their biasses guide their inputs so that the
outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base data
extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

So it's never happened, is that what you're saying?

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-14 17:01:49 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the after-effects
of the Brexit referendum mean the economy will
only enjoy limited benefits from a global upswing
in growth, economists said in the FT's annual
survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is
important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to
come. The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are
referring to. It shows it expects more of the same of what
has recently occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world of
better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would have
produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know. what
the future holds. Projecting history - even recent history -
is unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does
nt mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every time
but he stands a far better chance of being closer to the
outcome than someone relying on a random number generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against
the bookies but doing that is not a good long term strategy.
The bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the punter goes to
Bangor which might tell you some predictions are better than
others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off topic.
Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are working
from incomplete data or not taking into account enough
circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced dishonestly
by people who let their biasses guide their inputs so that the
outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base data
extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

So it's never happened, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying if you know of any (especially Brexit forecasts) then why not
mention them?

With good reason I don't believe the pro-Brexit or pro-Remain forecasts.
In fact, there's only one I've ever come across which even sounds honest
and balanced. (It may be balanced but it is still an estimate of the
unknowable.)

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-14 21:22:01 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the
after-effects of the Brexit referendum mean the
economy will only enjoy limited benefits from a
global upswing in growth, economists said in
the FT's annual survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is
important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to
come. The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are
referring to. It shows it expects more of the same of
what has recently occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world
of better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would
have produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know.
what the future holds. Projecting history - even recent
history - is unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does
nt mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every
time but he stands a far better chance of being closer to
the outcome than someone relying on a random number
generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against
the bookies but doing that is not a good long term
strategy. The bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the
punter goes to Bangor which might tell you some predictions
are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off
topic. Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are
working from incomplete data or not taking into account
enough circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced
dishonestly by people who let their biasses guide their
inputs so that the outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base
data extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

So it's never happened, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying if you know of any (especially Brexit forecasts) then
why not mention them?
With good reason I don't believe the pro-Brexit or pro-Remain
forecasts. In fact, there's only one I've ever come across which
even sounds honest and balanced. (It may be balanced but it is
still an estimate of the unknowable.)

My ears are sore with your guff about a forecast is only a
prediction. Surely an 11 year old knows that. It is not some
spectaular insight. Can you stop ringing that bell?

Not all forecasts are random walks. The point to focus on is the
confidence level regarding the accuracy of the prediction. Some
forecats have a very high chance of being accurate.

For example, if I see a car doing 60 mph and heading stright for a
brick wall, I forecast an accident. Something, perhaps Divine,
may intervene to prevent an accident but if I was bookie (looking
to continue my annual holidays in Bermuda at the punters' expense)
I would assume there is near certainty of an accident.

It's no good chipper James Harris leaping in to say the forecast
is only a fallible human being's speculation and therefore can be
safely ignored because it may never happen and then quoting as
eqaully realiable some loopy person who claims the car isn't even
there.

The world is built on forecasts and we rely on them. I forecast
there will be no nuclear bomb tomorrow, that the road will be
where I last saw it, that the prime Minister will not be
assassinated, that David David will not resign his job by the end
of the week, that we are not going to have a 30 degree weather
scorcher tomorrow, that the pertrol pumps will not run dry before
4pm on Tuesday, that Turkey will not invade Europe .. but in your
world the opposites seem equally likely.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Harris

2018-01-15 21:59:10 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the
after-effects of the Brexit referendum mean the
economy will only enjoy limited benefits from a
global upswing in growth, economists said in
the FT's annual survey of the profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is
important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to
come. The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are
referring to. It shows it expects more of the same of
what has recently occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a world
of better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would
have produced very different forecasts. They. Don't. Know.
what the future holds. Projecting history - even recent
history - is unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen does
nt mean a wild guess is as good as an informed opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every
time but he stands a far better chance of being closer to
the outcome than someone relying on a random number
generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely against
the bookies but doing that is not a good long term
strategy. The bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and the
punter goes to Bangor which might tell you some predictions
are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off
topic. Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are
working from incomplete data or not taking into account
enough circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced
dishonestly by people who let their biasses guide their
inputs so that the outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base
data extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

So it's never happened, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying if you know of any (especially Brexit forecasts) then
why not mention them?
With good reason I don't believe the pro-Brexit or pro-Remain
forecasts. In fact, there's only one I've ever come across which
even sounds honest and balanced. (It may be balanced but it is
still an estimate of the unknowable.)

So you think economic forecasts are like traffic accidents...?

Post by pamela
It's no good chipper James Harris leaping in to say the forecast
is only a fallible human being's speculation and therefore can be
safely ignored because it may never happen and then quoting as
eqaully realiable some loopy person who claims the car isn't even
there.
The world is built on forecasts and we rely on them. I forecast
there will be no nuclear bomb tomorrow, that the road will be
where I last saw it, that the prime Minister will not be
assassinated, that David David will not resign his job by the end
of the week, that we are not going to have a 30 degree weather
scorcher tomorrow, that the pertrol pumps will not run dry before
4pm on Tuesday, that Turkey will not invade Europe .. but in your
world the opposites seem equally likely.

Since you forget what I've said before you shouldn't complain if I
repeat it - which I will do: economic forecasts are necessary so that
planners have something on which to base their work, and those forecasts
may be as good as can be produced, but they are highly susceptible to
the assumptions of the forecaster and yet are sold to the public with a
certainty which is completely misleading. Mrs Sturgon was doing exactly
that today, e.g. "Scotland’s GDP would be 8.7 per cent lower by 2030
under a no-deal Brexit"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/leaving-single-market-would-cost-scotland-13bn-says-sturgeon-1.3356423

Another report produced by different economists might say "better off"
by some equally specious reasoning.

--
James Harris

pamela

2018-01-16 00:24:27 UTC

Post by pamela
"The UK will remain a relative laggard among
developed countries this year as the
after-effects of the Brexit referendum mean
the economy will only enjoy limited benefits
from a global upswing in growth, economists
said in the FT's annual survey of the
profession"

That's a forecast, not a fact. The difference is
important.

Well spotted. We haven't finished 2018. That is yet to
come. The forecast extrapolates the baseline you are
referring to. It shows it expects more of the same of
what has recently occurred. Viz, a laggard UK in a
world of better performance.

And if it had extrapolated this time last year it would
have produced very different forecasts. They. Don't.
Know. what the future holds. Projecting history - even
recent history - is unreliable.

Just because no one knows for certain what will happen
does nt mean a wild guess is as good as an informed
opinion.
Sure, an informed forecaster will not get it right every
time but he stands a far better chance of being closer to
the outcome than someone relying on a random number
generator.
It's possible, rarely, to win by betting completely
against the bookies but doing that is not a good long
term strategy. The bookie goes on holiday to Bermuda and
the punter goes to Bangor which might tell you some
predictions are better than others.

Your aphorisms are valid (as most of such are) but off
topic. Two things are happening here.
1. In one case, forecasts are being produced honestly but
naively, and missing useful components, e.g. they are
working from incomplete data or not taking into account
enough circumstances.
2. In the other case, forecasts are being produced
dishonestly by people who let their biasses guide their
inputs so that the outputs favour their preconceptions.
It is really a bad idea to base your own beliefs on such
forecasts.

3. Forecasts are being produced honestly using good base
data extrapolated correctly.
Oh but we're not supposed to talk about those, are we.

If you can find any, we can talk about them...!

So it's never happened, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying if you know of any (especially Brexit forecasts)
then why not mention them?
With good reason I don't believe the pro-Brexit or pro-Remain
forecasts. In fact, there's only one I've ever come across
which even sounds honest and balanced. (It may be balanced but
it is still an estimate of the unknowable.)

So you think economic forecasts are like traffic accidents...?

Post by pamela
It's no good chipper James Harris leaping in to say the
forecast is only a fallible human being's speculation and
therefore can be safely ignored because it may never happen and
then quoting as eqaully realiable some loopy person who claims
the car isn't even there.
The world is built on forecasts and we rely on them. I
forecast there will be no nuclear bomb tomorrow, that the road
will be where I last saw it, that the prime Minister will not
be assassinated, that David David will not resign his job by
the end of the week, that we are not going to have a 30 degree
weather scorcher tomorrow, that the pertrol pumps will not run
dry before 4pm on Tuesday, that Turkey will not invade Europe
.. but in your world the opposites seem equally likely.

Since you forget what I've said before you shouldn't complain if
I repeat it - which I will do: economic forecasts are necessary
so that planners have something on which to base their work, and
those forecasts may be as good as can be produced, but they are
highly susceptible to the assumptions of the forecaster and yet
are sold to the public with a certainty which is completely
misleading. Mrs Sturgon was doing exactly that today, e.g.
"Scotlandâs GDP would be 8.7 per cent lower by 2030 under a
no-deal Brexit"
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/leaving-single-
market-would-cost-scotland-13bn-says-sturgeon-1.3356423
Another report produced by different economists might say
"better off" by some equally specious reasoning.

That's interesting but it's an opinion, not evidence.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

Fredxx

2018-01-11 01:38:54 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of growth
in November. Renewable energy projects, boats, aeroplanes and
cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher in the three
months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher wages.

You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

pamela

2018-01-11 15:01:19 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher
wages.
You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

There are far more voters than workers and voters are the ones who
will lose.

I see no reason why the goods I buy should be overpriced in order
to subsidise uneconomic workers. I do not expect to fund social
policy by paying higher prices for goods.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

James Wilkinson Sword

2018-01-11 18:36:01 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher
wages.
You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

There are far more voters than workers and voters are the ones who
will lose.
I see no reason why the goods I buy should be overpriced in order
to subsidise uneconomic workers. I do not expect to fund social
policy by paying higher prices for goods.

We do it all the time with those bloody farming subsidies. Farming is a business not a charity.

--
Saying that she is promiscuous is an understatement.
She'll go zero to sixty-nine in under fifteen seconds."

Fredxx

2018-01-12 02:20:54 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate since
early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month of
growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9% higher
in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher
wages.
You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

There are far more voters than workers and voters are the ones who
will lose.
I see no reason why the goods I buy should be overpriced in order
to subsidise uneconomic workers. I do not expect to fund social
policy by paying higher prices for goods.

I don't expect those who are parasitic on the backs of workers give a
damn for them either.

pamela

2018-01-12 14:19:18 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month
of growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9%
higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher wages.
You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

There are far more voters than workers and voters are the ones
who will lose.
I see no reason why the goods I buy should be overpriced in
order to subsidise uneconomic workers. I do not expect to fund
social policy by paying higher prices for goods.

I don't expect those who are parasitic on the backs of workers
give a damn for them either.

Who knows what your parasites think. On the other hand, I am
talking about the majority of the adult population ... students,
workers, disabled or retired.

For decades labour lobby groups distorted the jobs market with
demands for subsidised jobs. It cost the consumer dearly who
himself or herself was probably trying to manage on income from
their non-subsidised job.

Fredxx

2018-01-12 15:40:12 UTC

Post by Bod
UK manufacturing output is expanding at its fastest rate
since early 2008 after recording a seventh consecutive month
of growth in November. Renewable energy projects, boats,
aeroplanes and cars for export helped make output 3.9%
higher in the three months to November than in 2016.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

How does that help the British consumer?

It doesn't, but it does help the British worker secure higher wages.
You don't work, so won't see the benefit.

There are far more voters than workers and voters are the ones
who will lose.
I see no reason why the goods I buy should be overpriced in
order to subsidise uneconomic workers. I do not expect to fund
social policy by paying higher prices for goods.

I don't expect those who are parasitic on the backs of workers
give a damn for them either.

Who knows what your parasites think. On the other hand, I am
talking about the majority of the adult population ... students,
workers, disabled or retired.

Brexit is perhaps the one time when those who create wealth have had a
say, when typically they are drowned by those who live off their backs.
They certainly seem to have more time on their hands and are most vocal.

Post by pamela
For decades labour lobby groups distorted the jobs market with
demands for subsidised jobs. It cost the consumer dearly who
himself or herself was probably trying to manage on income from
their non-subsidised job.

My opinion is any form of distortion creates its own problems. Wages are
best determined by market forces. If you want higher pay, ask for higher
pay with a view to look for another job, or even another profession.
Another is to throttle immigration.

I've know some moved from the sciences to accounting, the market lives.

R. Mark Clayton

2018-01-13 14:02:56 UTC

SNIP

SNIP

Post by pamela
Who knows what your parasites think. On the other hand, I am
talking about the majority of the adult population ... students,
workers, disabled or retired.

Quite the reverse I would think: -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226031/EXPOSED-How-Labour-depends-votes-Welfare-Britain.html

however they are less likely to vote: -

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/16/poverty-election-vote-apathy

However they did vote in the referendum, and being largely composed of the less educated they voted leave.

Most of the Brexit supporters here rail that the Remain supporters are mainly composed of the [rich] elite, who have done well out of Europeanisation and Leave supporters wanted their country back.

Of course all the talk of international free trade will expose the UK to greater globalisation. Will that help those in low value repetitive jobs? Yes, but not in this country.

Will

My opinion is any form of distortion creates its own problems. Wages are
best determined by market forces. If you want higher pay, ask for higher
pay with a view to look for another job, or even another profession.
Another is to throttle immigration.
I've know some moved from the sciences to accounting, the market lives.

Fredxx

2018-01-13 20:53:25 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
SNIP

Post by pamela
Who knows what your parasites think. On the other hand, I am
talking about the majority of the adult population ... students,
workers, disabled or retired.

Brexit is perhaps the one time when those who create wealth have
had a say, when typically they are drowned by those who live off
their backs. They certainly seem to have more time on their hands
and are most vocal.

Quite the reverse I would think: -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226031/EXPOSED-How-Labour-depends-votes-Welfare-Britain.html

The Daily Mail, what should I expect.

are you still in denial that Tory voters have a lower educational
attainment than Labour voters.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
however they are less likely to vote: -
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/16/poverty-election-vote-apathy
However they did vote in the referendum, and being largely composed
of the less educated they voted leave.

A bit like those who vote Tory?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Most of the Brexit supporters here rail that the Remain supporters
are mainly composed of the [rich] elite, who have done well out of
Europeanisation and Leave supporters wanted their country back.
Of course all the talk of international free trade will expose the UK
to greater globalisation. Will that help those in low value
repetitive jobs? Yes, but not in this country.
Will

Who is 'Will'?

This is what happens when a section of the electorate is told the
economy is doing well, and they feel left behind, with depresses wages
and rising demand and hence prices for housing.

Post by R. Mark Clayton