Live data from Hacker News

When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

priceonomics.com

261–270 of 277 posts

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#261
post #68

> ... Countries weren’t ready to give up their national currencies, but they agreed to fix their exchange rates with each other instead of “floating” their currency and letting capital markets set the rates. Since Germany had the strongest economy in Europe, each country set their currency’s value in Deutschmarks. They agreed to maintain the exchange rate between their currency and the Deutschmark within an acceptabl…

> The hyperinflation following Versailles and ensuing economic dislocation led in no small part to the rise of the Nazi party.

Nonsense - it was deflation caused by austerity policies following the 1929 crash that helped the NSDAP come to power.

https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/fac/gem/nazi_a...

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#262
post #79
post #56

This incident was the main reason the UK didn't enter the Euro. This wonderful BBC documentary explains everything on detail. https://youtu.be/K_oET45GzMI

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.

Other way around. The Guardian speculated in 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/... that if Britain had joined the Euro:

* The mid-2000s British housing bubble, and its collapse in 2007, would have been even bigger.

* Britain would have had to ask the IMF, ECB, and EU for loans.

* The Tories would in 2010 have promised a referendum to leave the Euro and won a majority. Labour would have won fewer than 100 seats, and UKIP would have "made spectacular gains".

* The anti-Euro side would have won the referendum, and the currency would have collapsed.

* "after a deep and painful recession economic recovery began".

* "Britain would have destroyed the euro on departure, and would now be on the point of leaving the EU altogether. The idea that Farage might be the next prime minister would be quite credible."

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#263
post #191

Wynne Godley's Maastricht and All That[1] is a great explanation of why the Euro was, and in fact is, doomed to failure and the UK was correct to stay out. This essay was written less than a month after Black Wednesday, so I assume it was probably influenced by the event. Sadly the lesson was evidently not learned, as the word "fiscal" doesn't appear a single time in the article. The key lesson here for states is onl…

>Wynne Godley's Maastricht and All That[1] is a great explanation of why the Euro was, and in fact is, doomed to failure and the UK was correct to stay out.

The Guardian speculated in 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/... that if Britain had joined the Euro:

* The mid-2000s British housing bubble, and its collapse in 2007, would have been even bigger.

* Britain would have had to ask the IMF, ECB, and EU for loans.

* The Tories would in 2010 have promised a referendum to leave the Euro and won a majority. Labour would have won fewer than 100 seats, and UKIP would have "made spectacular gains".

* The anti-Euro side would have won the referendum, and the currency would have collapsed.

* "after a deep and painful recession economic recovery began".

* "Britain would have destroyed the euro on departure, and would now be on the point of leaving the EU altogether. The idea that Farage might be the next prime minister would be quite credible."

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#264
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going largely off topic, but I'll indulge. > I don't know why leavers think the UK will be able to > negotiate better trade deals than a bloc of 27 countries. Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of? And is what the EU offers worth ~£9 billion a year? The UK doesn't have to make better trade deals, they can even afford to be slightly worse and still be of a net benefit. T…

> Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of? Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade negotiations. > I highly suspect that the UK will receive very good trade deals in a medium/long-term gamble by other super powers to destabilize the EU. Very few of the UK’s pote…

> Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has

> better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I

> wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade

> negotiations.

That's not entirely true, it also has somewhat to do with their relaxed policy on human rights and their status in the WTO. Now that the US is looking to balance the books, China's economy has taken quite a serious hit.

That said, the UK is also part of a much older and relatively large trading group - the Commonwealth.

> Very few of the UK’s potential trade partners are

> superpowers where the actors necessary to negotiate and

> ratify a trade deal have consensus around destabilizing

> the EU as a goal.

What you hear publicly and what goes on behind closed doors, are too very different things. I highly suspect that the US also has a vested interest in breaking up the EU, after all, it's the EU which is putting pressure on its booming tech industry for example.

I also suspect that there are multiple other powers poised to take advantage of destabilization of the EU. I also further suspect the EU has realized this threat, which is why the UK must help safeguard the EU-based banks for a Brexit deal.

> With a generous definition of “superpower”, you have China

> and Russia and that's it.

The term "superpower" is not easily defined at the best of times, granted.

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#265
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN > 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 th…

You cannot compare a loss to a transaction. The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, infrastructure projects. If black wednesday didn't happen you would just have an extra £3.3Bn. If we weren't members of the EU we would have £17.4Bn more, and our farmers would have lost their subsidies, rural development projects would be cancelled, we'd have no body to re…

> The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that

> provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments,

> infrastructure projects.

Not £17.4 billion's worth of transactions.

> As well as this your other EU example is spurious too -

> since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's

> the agreed remaining financial obligations [..]

A divorce settlement could also be called "fulfilling agreed financial obligations", but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow. I also somehow don't believe it's £30+ billion in pensions. I believe it'll mostly be investment into projects we'll never see the fruits of, I hardly believe they'll say "well, seeming as you invested into this, it's only fair you eat from the tree".

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#266
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gist of it is that if Germany were still on the Mark, then the Mark would be significantly stronger than the Euro is today. Having weaker economies on the same currency causes Germany's currency to be artificially weak, which makes its exports artificially cheap on the world market. In contrast, the poorer Eurozone countries have an artificially strong currency, which makes their exports more expensive than they…

how is having an artificially weak currency a subsidy to Germany? isn't that like underpricing their goods? and wouldn't that imply that countries who import German goods are being subsidized, because they are able to get German goods at artificially low prices? also can you suggest a place where I could read more about this? its awfully confusing, and somewhat counter-intuitive and it would be helpful to read where…

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-al...

>If a country or region has no power to devalue, and if it is not the beneficiary of a system of fiscal equalisation, then there is nothing to stop it suffering a process of cumulative and terminal decline leading, in the end, to emigration as the only alternative to poverty or starvation.

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#267
post #236
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN > 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 th…

You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway"). You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)

> You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get

> into it with someone here on Brexit :-)

The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#268
post #229
post #159

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…

Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in HN. "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that the average software developer in London pays 20K a year to the government for voting rights every 5 years. You obviously don't pay taxes for voting rights, you pay taxes to sustain or improve the environment you operate in and the voting is about choosing the people and the path to that. The "div…

> Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in

> HN.

I think we have a very different definition of propaganda.

I suggest getting into the comments early when a keyword is used in the title.

> "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that

> the average software developer in London pays 20K a year

> to the government for voting rights every 5 years.

It's clearly a tongue in cheek exaggeration.

> The "divorce bill" makes it sound like it some kind of a

> fine or something but it's actually about the obligation

> that the UK committed through the years.

I used "divorce settlement" - and it is very much like a divorce settlement. Both parties are expected to settle remaining costs and you end up losing the kids.

> A good analogy would be the UK participating in a birthday

> dinner party, promising to chip in for the present,

> ordering the food and the desert but leaving before the

> desert arrives so people expect the UK to pay for its

> desert as it was already cooked and pay its part for the

> present they bought.

Maybe, but then you would expect to be able to chose what to do with the desert if you've paid for it?

> If the UK does not honour its obligations, it would be

> incorporated in the future trade agreements.

Unfortunately, yes.

> Please don't use propaganda catchwords and talking points

> here, the topic itself is divisive but this is beyond

> that. It is a dishonest portrayal of reality.

I purposely put the word "divorce" in speech marks as it's what it is commonly referred to, rightly or wrongly. I wasn't aiming to paint a picture perfect version of reality, I would need several books to describe Brexit accurately (and no doubt somebody will write them). The purpose is simply to show that £3.3 billion is really not that much compared to our ongoing projects. Hell, another one to look at is the Trident project.

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#269

A bit off topic - does anyone know other blogs like priceonomics? I'm a big fan - I think the first article I read there was the "Diamonds are bullshit" one. Must be fun having access to all kinds of interesting data and poring over them.

The original diamond piece is from the Atlantic in the eighties. Still a great read.

Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)

#270
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very often associated or motivated by that. He has become a boogeyman for many people with terrible motives.

But he does legitimately do some sketchy things. You cant just handwave it away because some idiot bigots have it on repeat.

I disagree he does sketchy things. I think he's one of the most benevolent mega-philanthropists out there who has dedicated his life to expanding democratic ideals and liberal values throughout the globe.
Post reply on HN