181–190 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one person could destroy it, it wouldn't be healthy would it?
Healthy doesn't mean could not be destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Healthy doesn't mean could not be destroyed.
In this context that's exactly what it means. I have no idea what you are talking about, but this article is about the pound not being backed and the peg being forced to break. That doesn't happen unless there is some sort of dishonesty or insolvency going on.
Forgetting the politics of George Soros (which isn't suitable for HN anyway), I don't believe he is to blame for the UK government's questionable choices. To put the estimated £3.3 billion loss into perspective: * The failed NHS software update/upgrade project cost >£12 billion [0]. * The UK spends ~£9 billion a year (after calculating rebates) to be a minority voting block in the EU [1]. It's currently costing ~£0.7…
The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN on shorting the pound. By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
> on shorting the pound.
As I stated, £3.3 billion is very small compared to its other ongoing expenses. Factually pointing out the cost of membership is neither an argument for leave or remain.
> By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not
> the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
Please read the Full Fact reference [1]. From the £17.4 billion membership fee I negated the rebate amounts. The only major thing not taken into consideration is the financial sector investments and the philanthropic nature of the EU.
[1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem was it divided people into the ones who could afford the hike in interest and the ones who couldn’t. Either you could keep up and were rewarded by a house going up in value massively, or you went bankrupt.
They didn’t have fixed rate debt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this context that's exactly what it means. I have no idea what you are talking about, but this article is about the pound not being backed and the peg being forced to break. That doesn't happen unless there is some sort of dishonesty or insolvency going on.
In your context, even if the pound are being backed, doesn't mean it can't be destroyed.
If there is enough to exchange for the price that is claimed, then a billionaire can't break the peg by exchanging out pounds and forcing their hand.
The gold standard collapse in the US happened when France thought they didn't really have enough gold to back their currency. They started exchanging dollars for gold and the US was forced to break the amount of gold they claimed dollars were worth.
What do you think is meant by destroyed here? How is a financial entity destroyed if they aren't insolvent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Eurozone is fatally flawed because they share a currency but have no transfer payments between rich and poor members. So you have countries like Germany that are effectively subsidized by poorer countries. It's been a great setup for 20 years if you've been in the German capital class, not so great for anyone else.
> “The Eurozone is fatally flawed because they share a currency but have no transfer payments between rich and poor members.” This is incorrect. The EU has substantial transfer payments. Wealthier EU countries (like Germany) subsidise poorer ones (like Poland) on the order of tens of billions of Euros annually. Regional development (subsidies for poorer areas) is the second largest EU budget line item after agricultu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I wonder if this incident didn't happen, would the UK had entered the Euro and Brexit wouldn't be on the horizon today.
The Eurozone is fatally flawed because they share a currency but have no transfer payments between rich and poor members. So you have countries like Germany that are effectively subsidized by poorer countries. It's been a great setup for 20 years if you've been in the German capital class, not so great for anyone else.
It has been great for millions of non-Western EU citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They fellout of the EMS because their economy wasn not as tightly coupled to the rest of what became the Eurozone (whether that level of coupling is good or bad is a matter of disagreement). So if this incident hadn't happened it's likely they would have had a touch time under the Euro. For a weak economy IMHO the Euro is worth the disadvantages (and I happen not to consider the inability to do competitive devaluatio…
There is not an economist I know of, left or right wing, who believes that joining the EUR was beneficial for weak economies. Especially for Italy, proved to be catastrophic. Greece was always a basket case but Italy was doing pretty well before joining. Joining the EUR means literally giving up sovereignty. The Iron Lady explained that very concisely in her last speech as a PM in the House of Commons: “He who contro…
you are correct in that it makes monetary policy impossible to control from the "outside". obviously that's not a great outcome for various economies in the EU, including the ones you have listed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"we import more than we export. " Doubt that. Before you answer with a statistic, Google "dark matter in accounting" regarding the deficit. If apple sells an iPhone to Germany. In what export balance does it appear? What company makes the profits?
Without putting much analysis into it, IMHO whenever Apple would sell an iPhone in Germany the effects are as follows: Goods export worth the "wholesale price" from China to EU; An EU company (Apple entity in Ireland or Netherlands? the 'double Irish sandwitch' arrangement which IIRC is still used is a bit tricky, but one of these) earning almost all of the profits of that deal; The shares of publicly traded USA comp…
The second Irish company is for sales from US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that Soros did not hurt UK economy. Just bruised some egos at the Bank of England by showing their stupid mistakes.
"Soros did not hurt UK economy. Just bruised some egos at the Bank of England by showing their stupid mistakes." From the article: "At 11AM, the British government announced they would increase interest rates 200 basis points, from 10% to 12%. ... [later that day] an interest rate increase of another 300 basis points, from 12% to 15%." That means millions of ordinary people suddenly, not even overnight but on the sam…