Pound up, employment up, output up.

[^woody^]

Oddly enough Woody, EFLs actually right (it's JD that needs the economics lessons) If the pounds strong, it makes exports more expensive, so they slow down, and people get laid off. If the pounds weak, our exports increase, and people get overtime, or more get taken on, but a weak pound means that imports cost more, so inflation increases, so EFLs got it right - just didn't explain what he was getting at, and left you to fill in the blanks. But he was wrong (IMO) when he said that a strong dollar was good for America, as they suffer the same issues that we do.

But now that sterling is increasing against the dollar, that will very likely translate into the Footsie 100 dropping, and the Footsie 250 rising, as the companies in the FT100 get a lot of their dividends from America, and the FT 250 from the UK.

See, isn't economics confusing.

It's twisted logic.

It's not a case of (nor can it be) that it is bad if a country's currency is deemed strong, and bad if it's weak. If that's the case then it applies to every single country which makes every economy always bad - which makes a nonsense of the statement.

 

[JohnD]

Oddly enough Woody, EFLs actually right (it's JD that needs the economics lessons)

But it's Doggit that spouts meaningless slogans of nonsense.

 

[Doggit]

Sorry John; I can't fault the DIY advice you give on here, but I also can't rate your economics acumen.

It's not a case of (nor can it be) that it is bad if a country's currency is deemed strong, and bad if it's weak. If that's the case then it applies to every single country which makes every economy always bad - which makes a nonsense of the statement.

Well spotted Woody, although it's not quite as simplistic and straight forward as that, but there's an essence of truth in what you've noticed. If countries economy can find a balance in between a strong and a weak currency level, then things jog along reasonably well, but when they change a critical policy, then things go out of balance.

You have small company, and you're doing well, so you take on staff to handle a large job, and you keep on expanding, and then you need to take on an accountant to handle the books, but that means you need more profit, so you take on a bigger job, and that needs more staff, and that means you're paying more employers NI, and so you keep going. Then you suddenly get stuffed on a job, and don't get paid, so then you have to lay off staff, and then start building up again, so the pendulum swings back and forward.

Well a countries economy also swings backwards and forward, just on larger scale. But the real problem is that most economies work on expansion of GDP rather than finding a balance point, and to keep expanding, you need more young workers to pay the pensions of the people that have retired, and as those youngsters grow older, you need to take in more youngsters, or now immigrants to keep feeding the expansion, and that requires more houses, and more infrastructure, and so pendulum keeps swinging in and out of balance.

It's because we have an adversarial political system where the each party is just trying to get back into power; so the policies are designed to tempt people to vote for them, and not designed for a stable economy.

 

[JohnD]

I also can't rate your economics acumen.

.

Nor I yours.

Where did you pick up that meaningless slogan?

 

[Lex.Law]

Brexit could bring forth a few grey areas in terms of employment rights too.
Quite a few laws that currently protect employees are derived from EU directives!

 

[noseall]

Brexit could bring forth a few grey areas in terms of employment rights too.
Quite a few laws that currently protect employees are derived from EU directives!

The UK will just assimilate EU laws/directives into UK laws/directives. We'll probably follow their standards on manufacture and goods. Probably synchronise with their services sector and adopt their licencing and restrictions etc.

Take back control - lol.

 

[Vinty]

The UK has only to accept EU standards on goods they are exporting to the EU.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, are you thinking that the UK will have different production lines to meet various minimum standards for products depending on where in the world they are destined to go?

 

[bernardgreen]

different production lines to meet various minimum standards for products

Happens already in the UK with items produced as "own brand" for supermarkets.

There are items where compliance with an EU minimum standard causes the item to be more expensive/complicated/less efficient than the same item in a non EU compliant format.

Both versions provide the same functionality and the non EU compliant version is as safe and as fit for purpose as the EU compliant version.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Good point about own brands.

I used to think Tesco own brand products were usually better than the expensive 'top' brand.

 

[JohnD]

But the UK is in the EU.

Why are shops selling stuff that does not conform to standards?

 

[Notch7]

Happens already in the UK with items produced as "own brand" for supermarkets.

There are items where compliance with an EU minimum standard causes the item to be more expensive/complicated/less efficient than the same item in a non EU compliant format.

Both versions provide the same functionality and the non EU compliant version is as safe and as fit for purpose as the EU compliant version.

I cant see factories having different streams -the cost of controlling different standards would increase cost.

I understand that some EU rules may increase cost, but the huge advantage of regulatory compliance if likely to outway many of those costs. The frustration with a high level of regulation is that it disadvantages small businesses more than large.

the reason the EU want a level playing field (LPF) is to ensure UK goods are manufactured with the same workers protections and environmental controls -it doesnt want the UK to take short cuts and uncut prices.

Many EU regulations are applied around the world as standards, not just the EU -regulatory standards esp in chemical, pharma and aeronautical industries makes trade globally easier.
brexiteers often dont consider the huge impact that regulatory divergence will have on industry and on costs.

 

[Notch7]

Good point about own brands.

I used to think Tesco own brand products were usually better than the expensive 'top' brand.

I cant tell the difference with many products -cornflakes for example. they look and taste the same.

In a high volume process industry Im sure they all come out the same factory.
The difference in price is the marketing cost.

A lot of stuff is made by Nestle and Unilever who make brands too

products with recipes vary -almost all Christmas puddings are made in one factory -they stick more fruit in the dearer Waitrose Heston ones and less in the Lidl Snowy lodge brand.

 

[bernardgreen]

Unilever who make brands too

They own various semi-autonomous companies ( Walls Ice Cream being one of them ) and do not produce "own brands" ( such Tesco etc ).

 

[fillyboy]

the reason the EU want a level playing field (LPF) is to ensure UK goods are manufactured with the same workers protections and environmental controls -it doesnt want the UK to take short cuts and uncut prices.

And similar levels of corporation tax and VAT, they don't like competition, that's why they need to force Ireland to stop being a tax haven. As for environmental controls, I was under the impression the UK's controls far exceeded the rest of the EU.