Brexit Referendum

gcomeau wrote:Credit ratings are assessments of lending risks. As in, if you lend them money today will they be able to pay it all back *in the future*.

They must therefore be forward looking, not simple assessments of current conditions.

*facepalm*

I KNOW THAT. The point was that by current knowledge, they do NOT have a valid reason for that kind of rating drop.

gcomeau wrote:Of course it's unclear. You know one thing lenders really hate?

Uncertainty.

And THIS is the ONLY valid reason they actually have to reduce the rating yet.
A reason that could justify a single step down, MAYBE, because even that ignores the fact that the UK has always been VERY reliable.

That´s the problem with those ratings, they´re about as real as Scooby Doo. They are selffulfilling prophecies more than realistic assessments of credit worthiness.

gcomeau wrote:1. They do what they have to do to retain something like their current access to the common market. Which means they accept all the rules and obligations that go with it. Which the Leavers will throw a ranting fit about since all their "take the country back" rhetoric will be shown to have been complete bullshit that was never going to be enacted.

2. They don't, and the economy WILL take a serious hit.

Before joining EU, my own country managed just fine with something in between that.

And the claims that the economy will crash and burn the instant UK isn´t a direct part of the EU is just stupid, 100% bullshit scare tactics.

There could definitely be bad effects, but the probability of the doomsayers prophecies becoming true are VERY minimal.


#####

Michael Everett wrote:And yet Western Civilization has yet to collapse like the Bremainers claimed...

Indeed!

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Credit ratings are assessments of lending risks. As in, if you lend them money today will they be able to pay it all back *in the future*.

They must therefore be forward looking, not simple assessments of current conditions.

*facepalm*

I KNOW THAT.

Then why complain that they had changed the rating before the changes to creditworthiness had happened?

The point was that by current knowledge, they do NOT have a valid reason for that kind of rating drop.

They sure as hell do, the opinions of the vast vast majority of economic experts who analyzed the most likely impact of a Brexit.

gcomeau wrote:Of course it's unclear. You know one thing lenders really hate?

Uncertainty.

And THIS is the ONLY valid reason they actually have to reduce the rating yet.
A reason that could justify a single step down, MAYBE, because even that ignores the fact that the UK has always been VERY reliable.

Has always been. Past tense. As we just covered credit ratings are forward looking, and those very reliable people just voted to take a course of action which economic experts were screaming from the rooftops would have a severe impact on their economy.

And the claims that the economy will crash and burn the instant UK isn´t a direct part of the EU is just stupid, 100% bullshit scare tactics.

There could definitely be bad effects, but the probability of the doomsayers prophecies becoming true are VERY minimal.

If they thought the UK economy was going to be doomed and crash and burn and it would be economic Armageddon or something they wouldn't be giving it an AA rating. There's a LOT of real estate below an AA you know. 19 levels of worse actually.

They lowered it a couple notches. Because the UK took a step damn near EVERYONE knows is going to hit their economy but nobody is really sure how much. So there's RISK.

gcomeau wrote:They sure as hell do, the opinions of the vast vast majority of economic experts who analyzed the most likely impact of a Brexit.

There´s a BIG difference between "wild guessing" and analysis. And take a look at where those are coming from, the vast majority of the doom'n'gloom projections are paid for by people who were really hating the idea of there ever being a "brexit".

The few serious attempts at analysis so far ends up with "inconclusive" as the end result.

gcomeau wrote:Has always been. Past tense. As we just covered credit ratings are forward looking, and those very reliable people just voted to take a course of action which economic experts were screaming from the rooftops would have a severe impact on their economy.

*sigh*

Seriously, your above statement is completely idiotic. You´re basically saying that unless people vote the way that big finance WANTS them to, they are unreliable?

That´s like saying that i´m unreliable because i bought a blue car while the most popular colour was red.

Also, in case you have managed to miss out on it, the ratings have NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with the economics of a nation.
It only rates how reliable a nation is at paying its debts, nothing else.
Everything else is essentially smoke and mirrors used by a bunch of assholes that wants to control politics because they´re frickin greedy.

gcomeau wrote:If they thought the UK economy was going to be doomed and crash and burn and it would be economic Armageddon or something they wouldn't be giving it an AA rating. There's a LOT of real estate below an AA you know. 19 levels of worse actually.

They lowered it a couple notches. Because the UK took a step damn near EVERYONE knows is going to hit their economy but nobody is really sure how much. So there's RISK.

Why dont you tell that to Norway?

Oh right, they have one of Europe´s most successful economies...

Or hey, maybe tell it to the Finns? I´m sure they´d LOVE to hear how awesome they´re supposed to have it thanks to the wonders of the EU.
Especially when their introduction of the euro has changed their longstanding roughly equality in prices between Finland and Sweden, to Finnish prices going UP UP UP.
Something all those fancy analysts of yours promised would obviously neeeeever eeeever happen.

Stuff sold in both countries, that used to have pricetags within 5%, at the most extreme 10% of each other, nowadays, the Finnish pricetag tends to be 20-50% higher.

Oh yeah, those wondrous "everyone" who had a voice in economics, they guaranteed that relative prices would go down upon entry into the EU. They KNEW that was what would happen. Didn´t happen here, and went WAY worse in Finland who also joined the euro.

Oh and the whole friggin reason for the Greek economy tanking is that very same price creep, as it totally killed their tourism industry.
While the professional analysts KNEW that such a thing would obviously not happen, and in fact promised that tourism would flourish thanks to the removal of barriers.

You can examine the EU nations properly if you wish, you will find that every damn time there are predictions from the "professionals", they´re proven wrong.
And in case you missed it, the negative effects are exaggerated ( and the positive effects are dampened ) at the edges of the EU, which just happens to be where the UK is located.

If you bothered to check, and look at it without preconceived notions gained from a bunch of people who haven´t been right about this kind of thing in their predictions EVER, you might find that the plus and minus sides for exiting are nowhere near obvious.
It is quite possible that in 10 years from now, UK is drastically better off.
Not what i would expect, but i would still rank it as more likely than a complete disaster.

In part, because the rigidity of the EU is one of the things making it difficult to react effectively to changing conditions.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:They sure as hell do, the opinions of the vast vast majority of economic experts who analyzed the most likely impact of a Brexit.

There´s a BIG difference between "wild guessing" and analysis.

Yes there is. And when it comes to which is which I'll go with the *massive* consensus of experts on the topic.

And take a look at where those are coming from, the vast majority of the doom'n'gloom projections are paid for by people who were really hating the idea of there ever being a "brexit".

Bluntly, bullcrap.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

Unless you are seriously trying to claim that the people who didn't want to leave paid off nearly 90% of all economists? That's right up there with "all the global warming scientists are in the pocket of Big Global Warming" levels of conspiracy theory nuttery.

gcomeau wrote:Has always been. Past tense. As we just covered credit ratings are forward looking, and those very reliable people just voted to take a course of action which economic experts were screaming from the rooftops would have a severe impact on their economy.

*sigh*

Seriously, your above statement is completely idiotic. You´re basically saying that unless people vote the way that big finance WANTS them to, they are unreliable?

No, I'm saying that when people vote against the *massive consensus* of economic experts then their fiscal health is clearly not their first priority, which is naturally a concern to people like, oh I don't know, anyone considering LENDING THEM MONEY.

gcomeau wrote:If they thought the UK economy was going to be doomed and crash and burn and it would be economic Armageddon or something they wouldn't be giving it an AA rating. There's a LOT of real estate below an AA you know. 19 levels of worse actually.

They lowered it a couple notches. Because the UK took a step damn near EVERYONE knows is going to hit their economy but nobody is really sure how much. So there's RISK.

Why don't you tell that to Norway?

As soon as you tell me why anyone with a functioning brain should think the Brexiters voted to get a deal like Norway. Because that deal entails accepting things like freedom of movement in order to secure single market access. Something the Brexit campaign was dead set against allowing with all their fear mongering "we have to control migration" rhetoric.


If those xenophobic idiots all decide to wake up and accept reality and embrace that they cannot have their cake and eat it too, accepting the obligations and responsibilities that come along with the perks of single market access, then great! I image that credit rating would pop right back up a notch.

*sigh*

gcomeau wrote:No, I'm saying that when people vote against the *massive consensus* of economic experts then their fiscal health is clearly not their first priority, which is naturally a concern to people like, oh I don't know, anyone considering LENDING THEM MONEY.

1, yes because the consensus of people whose predictions are wrong over 90% of the time is such a great way of measuring something that isn´t even connected to their prediction.

2, if you buy a car that is NOT limited to exactly what you NEED, does that by default mean you are not going to pay for it?
Seriously? That´s one of the reasons those ratings are such total bollocks, because most of the time they have absolutely nothing to do with the probability of a country being able or willing to pay its debts.

And even if the doomsayers happened to be completely right, that STILL does not say shit about UK being more or less likely to pay debts.

gcomeau wrote:Bluntly, bullcrap.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

Unless you are seriously trying to claim that the people who didn't want to leave paid off nearly 90% of all economists? That's right up there with "all the global warming scientists are in the pocket of Big Global Warming" levels of conspiracy theory nuttery.

I really didn´t expect you to act stupid. 88% out of 600 "economists", most of whom are in business more likely to be affected by "brexit" than the economy on average is.

And if you read on, that 88% is actually limited to a SINGLE QUESTION, the one asking if it would "limit Britains growth prospects in the next 5 years", well DUH!
Of course it would! Only a moron would answer no on THAT. It´s a nonsensical question because "limit growth"? Who cares!

That could mean anything from "oh dear we only got a 30% economic growth instead of 300%" to "oh waily waily we got zero economic GROWTH, how dreadful, we´re almost down to recession"... Any politician RELYING on economic growth to handle the economy is an idiot.


61% expected it would cause a rise in unemployment. 27% less who actually think it would really impact the economy.


And really? You put obvious selfinterest on the same level as conspiracy theories? Please turn brain ON again.

Not to mention how you consider 61% of 600+ a "massive consensus", when just ONE of the two mentioned organisations have over 3000 members, while "amazingly" the Society of Business Economists just happen to have "around 600 members".

So, shall we guess why the response rate just happens to be like it is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

"The poll also found a majority of respondents – 57% – held the view that a vote for Brexit on 23 June would blow a hole in economic growth, cutting GDP by more than 3% over the next five years."

And suddenly we´re down to 57%. How terribly shocking! And if you call a loss of GROWTH of 3% over FIVE years terrible, well then you have no realistic frames of comparison.

Then we have an interesting addition to the whole:
"Non-UK citizens living in the UK were more likely to think a vote to leave would most likely have a negative impact on GDP over five years (96%) compared with British or Irish economists living in the UK (86%)."

So they ask people who may even be relying on the EU for their work if leaving is a good thing? And the answer is a surprise?

"The Treasury, which has predicted Brexit would cost each household £4,300 by 2030 in lost output and extra taxes"

Right, so their expectation is that the cost per HOUSEHOLD, is £300 per year. With the average income in UK per household being 29172, i´m sure that will be such a dreadful crisis, oh deary deary...

And the treasury is VERY likely to have been influenced by the "stayers"(as they´re also throwing out scare-numbers en masse), which means the real figure is most likely less.

gcomeau wrote:Yes there is. And when it comes to which is which I'll go with the *massive* consensus of experts on the topic.

Oh deary yes, 57% is such a "massive consensus" isn´t it? And that was on if there would be more than a 3% REDUCTION in GROWTH in 5 years, how absolutely catastrophic.


Seriously, you´re walking into every damn obvious trap that is standard tactics by the Euro-crowd. The exact same kind of tactics used when trying to get Sweden to vote to join the EU, same everywhere, and most of it is rubbish. Because they DON`T KNOW!

1990 to 2006, UK had a total economic growth in the upper 40s %.
1990 to 1998 it was very close to 20%.
43% of respondents says the impact will be less than 3% in 5 years, so in 8 years that would be at least 15% growth instead of 20%.

Where exactly is your economic disaster then?