[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

But but but...there was the Eurogeddon fund. Didn't you hear about it? All the clever people were going to bet all of their money on the collapse of the euro. Only they didn't, and they lost more than half of what they did bet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-08/eurogeddon-fund-betting-on-euro-zone-demise-shuts-after-losses

I made the point about Scotland a few pages back. Tumbleweed....

The UK as a fiscal union?

The other significant factor in the UK is that one of the countries (in fact one of the regions) vastly outweighs the other. It's an extremely centralised country, so you can let some of the regions languish if you like and it won't affect the coffers.

thecaptain

I made the point about Scotland a few pages back. Tumbleweed....

Oops

S'ok, this conversation has been going round in circles for a while now! Does it get locked when we hit 1000 pages?

thecaptain - Member

S'ok, this conversation has been going round in circles for a while now! Does it get locked when we hit 1000 pages?

Please god no. There'll just be an extra fifty threads a day so that people can voice their unique opinions on how Brexit was a lie and everyone who voted for it was a retarded nazi racist xenophobe.

Capn. Two false observations ; on me and on investors. To extrapolate one fund is staggeringly simplistic.

TJ you may be misunderstanding what fiscal union means. Plus, the fact that the € functions as a means of payment says little about why it failed

THM, you repeatedly asserting that the euro "failed" tells us little about whether it failed...

What would Europe be like now if it hadn't happened?

Is that really a serious question or merely a wind up?

But you are not going to accept my view either way - so follow my link and use £15 wisely

So 5 months of whining and trying to go round Barnier's back by Davis and still no trade talks before 3 issues settled, will Davis actually get on with things now (or was it always just for show ?)

There'll just be an extra fifty threads a day so that people can voice their unique opinions on how Brexit was a lie and everyone who voted for it was a retarded nazi racist xenophobe.

Is that really a serious question or merely a wind up?

Serious question.

Interesting article on 'frictionless' border crossings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

The point about any system in Dover having to deal with 10x the amount of traffic was also eye-opening for me. Having said that we'll have probably buggered trade up so much it'll be significantly lower anyway which I suppose is one way to solve the problem.

Mol - a few pointers

1. The N would be poorer the periphery richer
2. Unemployment would be much lower
3. Business cycles would be less extreme
4. The debt overhang considerably smaller
5. More banks would be solvent
6. Less stealing from savers
7. Countries would be governed by elected representatives not external appointees
8. Populism and nationalism would be less successful
9. Irish people would be still able to pay their mortgages
10. We would never have seen what proper austerity looks like, only our pretend version

(Oh and Brexshit would not have happened)

Enjoy!

7. Countries would be governed by elected representatives not external appointees

Umm?

Been drinking the Brexit flavoured vodka?

No just travelling thru the periphery

Sensible questions only please

11. Unicorns and owls for all

Sensible questions only please

You are getting lots. Polite ones too.

To (poorly) quote Carl Sagan - "There are naive questions, tedious questions, poorly-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-analysis. But every question is a plea to understand the world. There is no such thing as a stupid question"

Explaining why you think the € zone has failed may illuminate us.

Constantly dismissing the question instead of answering is not a polite or reasonable response. And inviting people to spend £15 on one book written covering one viewpoint isn't either.

I also happen to think that the € is a bad idea without greater political union. But this is based on my observation and thinking about it. I don't even know if my assumptions are correct. I'd very much like for someone who does know more about it to inform me.

You are getting lots.

If only - IGM a good example true hence he gets sensible replies

Explaining why you think the € zone has failed may illuminate us.

See above over many pages. If you want to ignore them that's your choice. Even bothered to quote an expert - but accept they are not popular these days

And inviting people to spend £15 on one book written covering one viewpoint isn't either.

He is hero to some who ask silly questions. If they want to wallow in ignorance instead, again that's an individual choice. Cheap investment.

But this is based on my observation and thinking about it.

As opposed to?

I'd very much like for someone who does know more about it to inform me.

I could suggest a nobel winning economist but...

Surely the success (or otherwise) of the euro needs to be measured against the original aim behind its introduction. If the aim was to produce some sort of financial parity across the EU then it's a failure (just ask the Greeks), but if the intention all along was to force ever closer union (through financial necessity to make the euro work properly) then it's too soon to tell. (And yes, I believe there are some who would put the political project ahead of national economies.)

Stop being such a nob THM.

How were the examples mol?

Been drinking the Brexit flavoured vodka?

Being a nob or engaging in sensible debate? Just because you failed to think about two very obvious examples, doesn't mean being a - what the word - .... ?

Well, given that you are an economist and I'm not, I was hoping for a bit more explanation. Remember I know naff all about economics, it'd be nice to be able to learn through a nice chat.

I'm interested in WHY you gave all those points - but 7 does sound quite brexity. I suspect you mean 'governed' in economic terms though.

No in the terms I mentioned. It could not have been clearer. But you chose a silly response and then an insult.

So dont expect any more.

OK THM, explain to us why the questions are stupid.

I've been reading this thread many times a day and don't remember seeing any posts from you explaining the reasons and basis for why you personally believe that the ez is bad.

Although, given your rather rude, patronising and condescending manner on this thread of late, and preference for baiting rather than discussing, I'm rather of the opinion that you are trolling everyone. Quite why I can't fathom but this thread seems to bring out the worst in people.

don't remember seeing any posts from you explaining the reasons and basis for why you personally believe that the ez is bad.

Pretty sure he has elsewhere (in his defence).

There's only one central bank which means only one set of interest rates (?) and only one fiscal and monetary policy. But all the different economies need different policies...

Being a nob or engaging in sensible debate?

Being a nob as you ask. Several pages of provocative mistruths, nonsense soundbites with no substance to back them up, suggestions to read books that are as loaded as order-order propaganda. You're reading like the brexit campaign THM. (no smiley that's straight as was my previous post where you mocked that it needed a smiley). Since Jamab left you read like a man on a revenge mission intent on bringing the whole forum down. Pretty much everything you write is calculated to offend.

I'm finding myself in the same situation as TJ. Debate with someone who is condescending and constantly takes the piss isn't possible.

Shaks - read the pages above. Then come back to me.

mol. There is no common fiscal policy and there are multiple central banks - in fact everyone has one. How can you answer comments that don't stand up from the start.

Ed. That's quite something given your history of posting things that are blatantly untrue. The Greeks being the latest. You outdo Jambas along with your tag team mate - no fiscal union???

suggestions to read books that are as loaded as order-order propaganda

Another great example 8O. Let's compare your comments with some professional reviews

Much more than a demolition job. These chapters are full of constructive proposals - a glimpse of what the "rescues" would have looked like had the troika, perish the thought, hired their critic Stiglitz to design them (Martin Sandbu Financial Times)

Stiglitz is one of those economists with a rare ability to help readers understand complex ideas. He writes with pace and passion ... There is much rich analysis and some bold ideas in The Euro. (Philip Aldrick The Times)

You are right in the company you keep. Quite a tag team

How can you answer comments that don't stand up from the start.

By explain why they are wrong. If we all knew the answers there would be no debate and nothing to learn.

I'm going back to see if I can find your answers. Any suggestions for how far back?

Previous page ? Quite a long list that you chose to ignore

Then you could try optimum currency theory - two pages back, plus comment on original source

Or what is required to make a common currency work - ditto

Shouldn't be too hard for you

If that fails try some expensive propaganda - link above but you have to use the tax dodgers Amazon for that. But be warned, Ed reckons that link is BS despite what the pros said in the review. You could take his advice if you trust it

This is what I didn't say earlier that didn't start this little debate off

The € cannot and doesn't not work by design. But to make it fail less of course you need full fiscal and political union. Just one drawback, the people don't want it!!

Reviews by journalists who suit your agenda, THM.

The Euro, like the EU is a success story to be further refined rather than ditched. Society evolves and a process of reforms are essential to managing economies in the Euro zone. That doesn't make it a failure, the shape of those reforms is up for debate, here's one such debate from left-of-centre economists to balance you right-wing champions:

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/videos/8pzszk.DGT/thomas-piketty-vs-jean-pisani-ferry-sur-l-euro-faut-il-mettre-un-nouveau-traite-sur-la-table.html

Your black and white "failure" "failed" is simplistic, I assume your eports for you employers expand a little more thah you do on here wher you treat us like simpletons which we are not.

Reviews by journalists who suit your agenda, THM.

You missed the smiley again Ed. Check the first reviewer and the company he works for. Then revert.

Here's one of his recent opening lines - the eurozones economic recovery proves the doomsayers wrong. Is that my agenda ? [Actually work wise at the moment it is!!]

You are a great sport Ed it has to be said. I would be far too embarrassed to keep posting that sort of stuff in public.

treat us like simpletons which we are not.

I have no idea about you Ed. I just address the things you post. Most of which don't stand up to scrutiny. No idea why you do it. I assumed it was humour.

Now you're misquoting me, THM:

, Ed reckons that link is BS despite what the pros said in the review.

At no point I have used "BS", I said "loaded" and "right wing". Both book and reviews are one side of an agument and I'm presenting the other. The result is you are persistently insulting and condescending towards me. You are incaple of debate, you are an Internet bully, always have been always will be.

I can't help it if you call a europhile journo who works for a europhile paper which consistently supported the € as loaded and right wing, can I? That's not presenting another side. It's using BS to shut some else else up, or try to.

It's you who tried to bully arguments with false comments - as this shows - and then gets shirty about it as you said earlier when someone else accused you of derailing a thread.

Anyway this isn't going well. So I will leave it alone for the night. Look forward to more abuse in the morning

Martin Sandrhu loaded and right wing. What a thought to dream on !! Bravo

Look forward to more abuse in the morning

Stop feeding.

mol. There is no common fiscal policy and there are multiple central banks - in fact everyone has one. How can you answer comments that don't stand up from the start.

You can correct what's wrong. I didn't know there were multiple banks acting as central banks for example, so thanks.

I'm here to learn not to fight. Unlike some people I know when I don't know stuff!

1. The N would be poorer the periphery richer
2. Unemployment would be much lower
3. Business cycles would be less extreme
4. The debt overhang considerably smaller
5. More banks would be solvent
6. Less stealing from savers
7. Countries would be governed by elected representatives not external appointees
8. Populism and nationalism would be less successful
9. Irish people would be still able to pay their mortgages
10. We would never have seen what proper austerity looks like, only our pretend version

This list? I saw that but it is a list of "answers". I wanted the working that got you there.

I am not an economist, I don't have a financial background nor am I in business. It is hard for me to grapple with these kinds of subjects without the years of knowledge and experience that I assume you have.

It is a bit like if you asked me "how does photosynthesis work to fix carbon?" (I'm a plant biochemist) and I replied something along the lines of "light, chlorophyll, electron transport chains, NADPH, co2, water and RuBisCo". Broadly accepted to be correct but doesn't explain the process or evidence to support it and would leave most people no better informed.

Happy to help mol despite the first reply about the vodka and the nob comment. 😉

Sleep well!!

Constantly dismissing the question instead of answering

V

but it's a list of "answers"

😀

Here a bit of reasoning that you chose to ignore - admittedly with some tongue in cheek

The € cannot and doesn't not work by design. But to make it fail less of course you need full fiscal and political union

That's 3x

The Eurosystem consists of the European Central Bank and the national central banks (NCB) of the 19 member states that are part of the eurozone. [b]The national central banks apply the monetary policy of the ECB.[/b]

MY bold .

Basically its sort of true

You could argue it either way but probably fairer to say it some sort of [weak]mutual fiscal policy centrally controlled and locally administered. Is it a pure one probably not but its not true to say there is [b]no[/b] common fiscal policy.

Broadly accepted to be correct but doesn't explain the process or evidence to support it and would leave most people no better informed.

He does have a tendency to make statements without explaining them, but in the past when asked nicely he does explain.

This thread is better when people are playing nice. And whilst we are on the subject, apologies for the nob comment 🙂

Here a bit of reasoning that you chose to ignore - admittedly with some tongue in cheek

The € cannot and doesn't not work by design. But to make it fail less of course you need full fiscal and political union

Nope, not ignored, taken on board but this is just you making a statement not reasoning.

Why can the euro not work by design?

Why would full fiscal and political union make it fail less rather than actually work?

but it's a list of "answers"

The better question is how long it has to last before folk stop saying this