[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 79126)
Message
File  []
close
Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.jpg
791267912679126
>> No. 79126 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:06 am
79126 spacer
>Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year

>Britain’s biggest banks are preparing to relocate out of the UK in the first few months of 2017 amid growing fears over the impending Brexit negotiations, while smaller banks are making plans to get out before Christmas.

>A source close to Brexit secretary David Davis said he and the chancellor Philip Hammond had last week sought to offer reassurance that they were determined to secure the status of the City of London. However, the government’s stated intention to take control of the freedom of movement into the UK is widely recognised among officials to be a hammer blow to any chance of retaining the present terms of trade for banks, particularly given the bellicose rhetoric of major politicians on the continent.

>Browne, whose organisation has been in intense negotiations with the government, further warns the EU that banks based in UK are currently lending £1.1tn, therefore “keeping the continent afloat financially”, and that this arrangement is at risk. Of Britain’s position, he writes that banking is the country’s biggest export industry by far, and that the current trajectory threatens not just tariff-free trade but the legal right of banks to provide services. He says: “Most international banks now have project teams working out which operations they need to move to ensure they can continue serving customers, the date by which this must happen, and how best to do it. “Their hands are quivering over the relocate button. Many smaller banks plan to start relocations before Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of next year.”

>It has been reported that Goldman Sachs is among those drawing up plans to transfer around 2,000 of its employees to a rival European city should the UK lose its passporting rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk

I spoke to my mother who works for a major bank and she has revealed that there has recently been a wave of job positions advertised to go work in Geneva. I guess reality has become a remoaner.

How can the government fix this? Is it even a problem when surely the manufacturing industry is about to take off?
Expand all images.
>> No. 79127 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:33 am
79127 spacer
London will remain financial capital of Europe, it's position will be diminished however.

I thought everyone hated banks anyway?
>> No. 79128 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:39 am
79128 spacer
>>79126
>How can the government fix this?
By calling the whole thing off and realising they've made a colossal mistake. It really is the only way.

Much as we hate the banks, they are the only reason we're the sixth largest economy in the world (assuming the collapse in sterling hasn't cost us yet another place in the meantime).
>> No. 79129 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 11:42 am
79129 spacer
I read that basically nowhere in Europe has the capacity to accommodate the banks like London and so any banks that do move will almost definitely be heading to NYC instead.

So basically all these banks will move away from Europe, just to piss them off even more.
>> No. 79131 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 12:51 pm
79131 spacer
If we're serious about this HARD BREXIT shit we should nationalise the fuckers. British capital for British workers.
>> No. 79133 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 12:58 pm
79133 spacer
>>79131
That sounds like something the UNPATRIOTIC TRAITOR Jeremy "Karl Marx" Corbyn would say. You wouldn't want to be unpatriotic would you? Theresa may have just the bunker for you...
>> No. 79134 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 12:59 pm
79134 spacer
>>79128
>they are the only reason we're the sixth largest economy in the world
Ach, who gives a fuck?
A smaller economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth is not always a bad thing.

I typed this and then realized I don't really have a neat way to tie it into a relevant example of how we could alter the UK economy to be less shit, especially with a Conservative government at the helm, instead of just a hypothetical example that sounds vaguely right. (Less banks, more manufacturing!)
>> No. 79135 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 1:08 pm
79135 spacer
>>79134
>A smaller economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth is not always a bad thing.
How about a smaller economy with the same wealth distribution? That's what's going to happen.
>> No. 79137 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 3:36 pm
79137 spacer
At this stage I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

The banks have been threatening to leave for one reason or another for years. It'd make sense for them to have a contingency plan arising from Brexit, but where are they going to go? Italy is in all kinds of trouble. Germany is heading the same way with Deutsche Bank and a number of their smaller regional banks teetering towards the edge of a cliff. Besides, nowhere else in Europe would have the resource to adequately manage them all and the sole reason to leave to an EU country would be passporting. I've heard people say New York is also out of the equation because it's a completely different timezone to Europe.

Also, the Guardian have been Chicken Little ever since the Referendum result was announced. They've been proclaiming the sky is falling about inflation rising to 1%. Likewise about the manufacturing indices falling one month, but then were noticeably quiet when it shot up even higher the following month. They put a hugely negative slant on the IMF predicting we'd have the strongest growth in the G7 during 2016 and the second strongest in 2017 as they'd cut the growth forecasts, but they'd done that for all G7 nations rather than Britain alone.

It's been funny to watch the mental gymnastics from some people who have spent the past 8 years bemoaning banksters and spivs suddenly becoming some of their most ardent supporters.
>> No. 79138 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 3:48 pm
79138 spacer
>>79135

How do you work that out?

It's only the rich fuckers who are leaving. Unless you are a believer of all that "trickle down economics" nonsense, you're probably not the sort of person who stands to lose out on much.

Sixth largest economy my arse, have you been to somewhere like Scunthorpe? The reality of matters in this country is probably closer to your average ex-Soviet state, but we have the City of London to push the average up.

You can tell Brexit is a victory for the common people of Britain in the face of globalised capital because of how desperately the media wants you to believe otherwise. And if you think that what's best for global capital is what's best for you, then you should be hung by the bollocks until dead.
>> No. 79139 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 4:08 pm
79139 spacer
I honestly don't care. I'm not a banker, and if we had a manufacturing industry as big as our financial sector, then maybe I would have a job that isn't in the service industry, and maybe I would care. In fact, maybe the house prices will crash and then I can afford one.

I just don't care. Happy I voted out. Good to see all this happening. Fucking twats.
>> No. 79140 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 4:17 pm
79140 spacer
>>79137
>but where are they going to go?
Germany, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The latter two have always been friendly to the financial sector.

>Germany is heading the same way with Deutsche Bank and a number of their smaller regional banks teetering towards the edge of a cliff.
This is a positive in two ways. On one hand, all that growth in the sector may dilute any possible damage. On the other, if those banks go to the wall, it'll free up a lot of new business for the newcomers.

>They've been proclaiming the sky is falling about inflation rising to 1%.
Well, yeah. The pound has crashed and inflation is rising, and we haven't even started on the road to leaving yet. They're not good signs. There is literally zero evidence of any positivity yet that can be attributed directly to the referendum result, no matter how much the Brexiters want to try and spin it such. To say our growth forecast is among the strongest in the G7 is somewhat misleading. It hasn't been boosted by Brexit, but rather the other countries are being impacted by the fallout from it.
>> No. 79141 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 4:34 pm
79141 spacer
>>79138
>How do you work that out?
Not him, but I assume it's something to do with having open eyes and a functioning brain. You don't really believe that things are going to become more equitable, do you?

>It's only the rich fuckers who are leaving.
Rich fuckers who spend a fair bit of money. Velocity of money is a real thing, you know.

>Unless you are a believer of all that "trickle down economics" nonsense
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. "Trickle down economics" is the idea that the rich could do more for the economy if only you didn't tax them so hard. It's got nothing to do with the self-evident reality that, given a much higher disposable income, they tend to dispose of an awful lot of it.

>Sixth largest economy my arse, have you been to somewhere like Scunthorpe?
I hear it's got a massive fuck-off steelworks that employs fuckloads of people and exports all over the world, which was clearly valuable enough for someone to want to buy it off Tata.

>You can tell Brexit is a victory for the common people of Britain in the face of globalised capital because of how desperately the media wants you to believe otherwise.
You've still got sand in your hair, lad.
>> No. 79142 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 4:35 pm
79142 spacer
>>79139
>if we had a manufacturing industry as big as our financial sector, then maybe I would have a job that isn't in the service industry, and maybe I would care
Or maybe you wouldn't, because manufacturing industries don't employ on anything like the scale they used to. Thanks to automation, the same level of productivity of years past can be achieved with far fewer employees. People really need to stop fetishising a return to manufacturing as some cure all.
>> No. 79143 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 4:53 pm
79143 spacer
>>79142
Well then there is nothing left, is there? What's the point of all this? Is banking the only last thing we have now?
>> No. 79144 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:04 pm
79144 spacer
>>79143
In terms of net value added to the national economy, banking is a large part of it, yes.
>> No. 79145 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:33 pm
79145 spacer
>>79142
If we manufactured things here, we'd be less reliant on imports.

Mumble mumble mumble, so then we bring back capital controls, implement basic income, if the rich people don't want to pay higher taxes? fine, you can go - but leave all your money over £500 at the border, cunts.

Not joking either. The one thing I want more than anything else is a return to capital controls, transferring power from banks and currency speculators back to national governments. The only problem with the fantasy is that for it to work almost everyone has to go back to capital controls, otherwise we just make ourselves look a bit mad.

Perhaps because I'm not actually an economist, I have no idea how one could look at the impossible trinity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity) and choose anything but capital controls.
>> No. 79147 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:40 pm
79147 spacer
>>79138
Nobody advocates 'trickle down economics' because it is invented as a bogeyman by the left.
>> No. 79148 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:44 pm
79148 spacer
>>79143
>>79144
In general, we are running out of useful work to give people. The theory of the past was that technological unemployment opened up new opportunities, but it's starting to look like it merely accelerated our economic development, and that in the near future we won't be able to create new opportunities quickly enough for all the workers we are making redundant. We are reaching a point where in parts of the US a family with a couple of adult children can run a farm the size of Rutland by themselves, and an entire production line can be run by half a dozen people in total (whose job is basically to figure out why the line has stopped and restart it). The problem is that while we're increasingly getting a capacity for leisure, we lack the resources to pay for it. The basic income crowd like to point out that fear of joblessness and losing one's income keeps people in jobs that they're ill suited to and don't really like, and removing that pressure would cause wages for shitty jobs to rise, as having a basic income would mean those in that line of work would have a viable alternative.
>> No. 79149 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:45 pm
79149 spacer
>>79147
Didn't realise Art Laffer was a leftist.
>> No. 79150 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:47 pm
79150 spacer
>>79140
>Well, yeah. The pound has crashed and inflation is rising, and we haven't even started on the road to leaving yet.

It's still only 1% and the BoE don't seem overly concerned at this stage. I'm not going to deny that things have the potential to go tits up, but the Guardian are being melodramatic again. Then again, they screamed to high heaven about the commercial property OEICs and unit trusts suspending trading yet there was barely a peep out of them when they reopened.

I wouldn't take anything they have to say at face value on Brexit. This is, ultimately, an interview they had with the banking sector's chief lobbyist. His interests lie in getting the best for them. Let's watch this space.

>>79141
>I hear it's got a massive fuck-off steelworks that employs fuckloads of people and exports all over the world

Come off it, lad. Whenever the steelworks in Scunny has been on Look North it's because of large job cuts. They've been shedding jobs for donkey's years.
>> No. 79152 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:53 pm
79152 spacer
>>79148
So... we will have rioting and mass strikes soon-ish?
>> No. 79153 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 5:57 pm
79153 spacer
>>79150
>Whenever the steelworks in Scunny has been on Look North it's because of large job cuts.
That might be because "local steelworks produces steel" isn't exactly news.
>> No. 79154 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 6:17 pm
79154 spacer
>>79152
God willing.
>> No. 79155 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 6:27 pm
79155 spacer
>>79149
Always loved that the Laffer curve is never used to advocate tax increases, even though by definition there is a point where you're taxing below the revenue optimal rate.
>> No. 79156 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 6:40 pm
79156 spacer

b8a.jpg
791567915679156
>>79126
>bankers fucked by brexit
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

GET FUCKED TARQUINS.

This is the industry that crashed our economy in 2008 right? I'm supposed to care? Only way this could get better is if they were all executed.
>> No. 79157 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 6:48 pm
79157 spacer
>>79156
But we bailed them out. So now it appears that, they ruined everything, took a lot of our money, and are just leaving with it.

Isn't that robbery? What the fuck? I have issues where I keep seeing everything in black and white terms and I am finding this very difficult. I'm so close to just robbing a bank.
>> No. 79158 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 6:56 pm
79158 spacer
>>79153
Trust me, if job numbers were going up then they'd be covering it. North Lincolnshire is a postindustrial shithole and has seen large job cuts in recent years, be that the steelworks, Lindsey oil refinery or when Kimberly Clark closed their factory when they decided to stop selling Huggies in Europe.
>> No. 79160 Anonymous
23rd October 2016
Sunday 7:22 pm
79160 spacer
>>79158
The fact remains that many of those industries are still open and still producing. They're just doing so in a much more efficient fashion. Thanks to modern machinery, you simply don't need 500 people to insert tab A into slot B, much to the annoyance of the unions. Some of those factories are diversifying, but mainly that's to redeploy parts of the workforce displaced by automation.

The question you need to ask is why the businesses that are appearing in the wake of technological unemployment aren't employing people in Scunthorpe. For the past couple of decades we've been seeing the fallout from many places being effective monotowns.
>> No. 79206 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 11:09 pm
79206 spacer
I read a book titled Red Notice by an investment banker named Bill Browder. To cut it short, he comes from a family of US communists and as an act of rebellion, became a filthy capitalist investment banker. Fresh out of university he moved to England, the Soviet Union collapsed, and through a contact he started investing in Russia and made huge profits very quickly, and so climbed the ranks and made a name for himself.

The reason the oligarchs have so much money is because when the USSR collapsed, shares were distributed to everyone of legal age in the country. Most of them either didn't know what to do with them, didn't care, or were in such poverty that they'd happily swap them for a bottle of vodka or a sack of potatoes. This happened in the villages, then the shares were brought to the towns and bought up, then to the cities and bought up again, finally reaching the hands of a select few who, mostly, already had power in governance in the USSR. These are the oligarchs.

Possibly as a fuck you to the west, possibly because they really are corrupt kleptocratic maniacs, they started stealing from the western investors. The methods they use and the laws in Russia are fantastic and worth reading the book for alone. Browder got out of the country, but the Russian police murdered his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, and so Browder campaigned to stop the oligarchs being able to spend their money in the west, getting the Magnitsky act passed in a number of western countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act
>The Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is a bipartisan bill passed by the U.S. Congress and President Obama in November–December 2012, intending to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.

That's the background. I looked Bill Browder up a few months back, after reading his book earlier this year. I found this youtube video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggw0cziixF0?t=4m25s

(I linked the video to the pertinent information, at roughly 4 minutes 20 seconds, but all of it is relevant and worth a watch if you're interested)

Now, I know for a fact (and it's easy to find information on this) that the tories are using the DWP to create artificial statistics on employment, creating figures that say they have got more people into employment when really they're just putting people on zero hour contracts or moving troublesome job centre clients onto ESA. I know people who work for the job centre who vouch for this, as well as there being plenty online and in the press that claims/indicates this as well.

In the above video (Browder at a select committee hearing), Browder claims that the piece of legislation he has campaigned in the name of for the past 10 years is not being passed in the UK; he is being passed from agency to agency, being met with dead ends and disregard along the way. In the above video, he claims that the amount being spent by the Russians in the UK is in the region of hundreds of billions of dollars. Could this, aside from politicians being bought off, be artificially inflating regions of, if not all of, the economy? That is not a small amount of money.

Maybe the reason why the legislation isn't being passed here (he discusses this slightly before the 4 minute point I linked in the video) is because the word has come from the top that we need this politically? I'm interested to hear opinions on this.
>> No. 79207 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 11:16 pm
79207 spacer
>>79206
>moving troublesome job centre clients onto ESA
Are they not trying to kill off everyone on ESA, though?
Was going to detail my personal experience with considering applying and concluding it wouldn't work out, but probably better to just point at the Ken Loach film and say "Basically this thing." though I will emphasise that when reading up on ESA the impression I seriously got was that the DWP wanted me to kill myself and not bother society.

Or are they trying to kill all the actually disabled people while shifting the long-term unemployed onto ESA, to bugger the statistics in the most cynical manner? It honestly wouldn't surprise me, except that it possibly displays a level of coherent organization one can never trust a government to have.
>> No. 79208 Anonymous
24th October 2016
Monday 11:31 pm
79208 spacer
>>79207

It's people that are on PIP, formerly called DLA, that are the subject of Ken Loach's film.
>> No. 79209 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 12:54 am
79209 spacer
>>79208
Does he not apply for ESA, but get found fit to work and told to fuck off? That's what I was told. If not: this is a bit of an embarassing cockup and I feel like one of those annoying shows that randomly shoehorns in a reference to Islamic State to emphasise that we are in-fact modern and up-to-date thank you very much. Shameful.

Either way, yeah, do they not desperately try to find people on ESA fit to work ("Ah, in very specific circumstances you might be able to stand up out of your chair briefly. Zero points. Claimant can mobilize freely and should consider a career as a jogger...") so that they'll fuck off and die and not burden the state anymore? It's definitely the impression I've got.
>> No. 79210 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 9:11 am
79210 spacer
>>79209

To be honest ol' buddy ol' chum - I haven't seen it either, but I was told it's PIP. A family member works at the job centre and told me what I mentioned above - they move problematic people onto ESA for 3-4 years, and then they're up for review. At the end of this period they might be taken off and pushed into work, whether they're legitimately ill or not, but by then the statistics are out.

This is a top-down mentality in the DWP, it's just 'get the fuckers anywhere but on JSA', they have an office mentality where they give rewards to staff who meet their targets, whereas 15, even 10 years ago, there was a much more considerate attempt to get people into legitimate and appropriate work or benefits and the kudos came from helping problematic clients rather than chasing numbers.
>> No. 79211 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 9:14 am
79211 spacer
>>79209
>Ah, in very specific circumstances you might be able to stand up out of your chair briefly. Zero points. Claimant can mobilize freely and should consider a career as a jogger...

Also, I forgot to mention, ESA has two components - income based and support based. Support based is more for disabled people, income is the group they put people off in the instances I'm describing:

https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/articles/questions-and-answers-employment-and-support-allowance-advisers
>What work-related conditionality have customers to undertake? Is there a compulsion to attend job interviews?
Customers not in the support group may be required to take part in work focused interviews.

They just forget about you for the duration, don't even try and get you to do anything jobsearch-related.
>> No. 79252 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 3:16 pm
79252 spacer
>The UK economy grew 0.5 per cent in the third quarter of 2016, exceeding forecasts and defying Treasury warnings that a vote to leave the EU would spark an immediate recession.

>Although growth in the three months from July to September was slower than the 0.7 per cent in the second quarter, it was much stronger than many economists had expected. The most recent average forecast was 0.3 per cent.

https://www.ft.com/content/bab284e4-9c1d-11e6-a6e4-8b8e77dd083a

>The head of the World Trade Organisation has vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however tough its exit from the European Union.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-not-cause-uk-trade-disruption-wto-boss-10632803

>Nissan has confirmed it will build both the new Qashqai and the X-Trail SUV at its Sunderland plant thanks to government "support and assurances".

>Nissan's decision is the first major development for the car industry since the Brexit vote and secures 7,000 jobs. A Nissan spokesman said making the X-Trail at Sunderland could lead to hundreds of new jobs being created in the coming years.

>Business Secretary Greg Clark said: "The fact Nissan have not only made a long-term commitment to build the next generation Qashqai and X-Trail at Sunderland, but decided to upgrade their factory to a super-plant, manufacturing over 600,000 cars a year, is proof of the strength of the sector."

>Building the X-Trail SUV is an unexpected addition to the model line-up at Sunderland, which makes almost one in three cars built in Britain and produced 475,000 vehicles last year - 80% of which were exported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37787890

Everything's coming up Milhouse.
>> No. 79253 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 4:06 pm
79253 spacer

CgDV7yfUkAAerLA.jpg-large.jpg
792537925379253
>>79252
>+0.5 GDP

This in the same week that everyone was accusing China of faking its GDP graph. I am sure there is nothing to see here.
>> No. 79256 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 6:08 pm
79256 spacer
>>79253
What?
>> No. 79257 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 6:19 pm
79257 spacer
>>79256
There has been a lot of discussion earlier in the week about the Chinese GDP and how in recent years and measurements, it has become suspiciously stable, far less volatile. It seems suspicious to me that GDP numbers come out today, against all the recent run of trend, that show our economy apparently growing.
>> No. 79259 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 6:45 pm
79259 spacer
>>79257
>against all the recent run of trend

What recent run of trend is this? GDP has grown for 15 consecutive quarters. Growth of 0.5% against a forecast of 0.3% is hardly way out there. This is all down to the services sector growing by 0.8%. Manufacturing fell by 0.4%. Construction fell by 1.4%. Agriculture also fell.

Are you one of those people who have had enough of experts?
>> No. 79262 Anonymous
27th October 2016
Thursday 11:11 pm
79262 spacer
>>79252

The pound is still at $1.22, so our GDP growth is a fairly small consolation. Our balance of payment hasn't improved, which is a worrying indicator.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password