Astute
Well-Known Member
Strangely enough Forbes used the latest numbers.
So how about rubbishing the whole way that they work things out?
Strangely enough Forbes used the latest numbers.so our growth forecast haven't been constantly downgraded? OK then.
Why is it?
A non biased well respected company that comes out with good news can't be proved wrong. Yet you try to. You either don't know how economics work or you are trying to prove them wrong.
Them & more especially the hidden faceless beaurocrats
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.I've said it before, I would love to see the economy flying. My son leaves school next spring and I would want as many opportunities as possible available to him but I am very pessimistic based on what I read and what I see. I'm just been a realist. I could be wrong and hope I am but it's very difficult to find anything to be optimistic about.
Strangely enough Forbes used the latest numbers.
So how about rubbishing the whole way that they work things out?
So would you like to explain it in your own words?so the Financial Times isn't a respected publication.
PCW aren't a non biased respected company?
UK Economic Outlook
If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.
We were in the top 15 of all sections compared except for one. Political uncertainty came in at 25th.
Germany came in at 95th for red tape. A very good reason for companies not to invest there.
It depends how it is worked out. If PPP is used then we are down to 6th. This will always change.They didn't know that the UK has dropped from 5th to 6th biggest economy so I would suggest they didn't but I'm glad you have gleaned so much from one article that you can dismiss all others. If you think the economic outlook looks good then fair play to you. We'll know who was right this time next year. I hope it's you but I don't think it will be unfortunately.
Couldn't see the FT article. PCW agreed with the Forbes numbers.I have no opinions on Forbes.
But there are plenty of respected news sources and companies contradicting what they say and not many backing them up.
I have provided links from FT, PCW, CityAM and the Chancellors own projections which have down graded UK growth next year which was already performing badly compared to other G7 countries.
Why should Forbes article be considered more accurate than them?
So would you like to explain it in your own words?
They weighted it down because of Brexit. Yet they say we won't go into recession. The main numbers against us have been going down since 2010. What has this got to do with Brexit?
Have you never heard of Forbes before?
Or did you read it and not want it to be true?
It isn't just an article by one person. If you would have read it properly you will have noticed that many things are used. And the only minus for us was political uncertainty. They also mentioned the possibility of 10,000 banking job losses. The rest is what has been ignored by the remainers.
Why is it?
A non biased well respected company that comes out with good news can't be proved wrong. Yet you try to. You either don't know how economics work or you are trying to prove them wrong.
If you were being a realist you would believe what a well respected company like Forbes has to say. They have no reason to want us in or out of the EU.
We were in the top 15 of all sections compared except for one. Political uncertainty came in at 25th.
Germany came in at 95th for red tape. A very good reason for companies not to invest there.
They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.That London is a major financial centre and that with life style are major plus points for Forbes has not been ignored by remainers. In fact, London wants to keep things as they are as being in the EU is a significant benefit.
Forbes didn’t dwell on the rest of the country and did mention possible downsides such as potential loss of jobs in the City, the City being one of the major plus points, and attracting talented, well educated people from abroad.
Did you google where Germany is on the list?
Clueless.New Zealand is Second on the list. It is not a list of how well the countries are doing. America was 23 and is now 11, mainly because of removal of red tape. Red tape is not necessarily bad for citizens. E.g. removing environmental regulations leads to a higher position in the list, but is bad for the population.
Despite that, 5 out of the top 10 places are EU countries- with faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and red tape. This shows the strength of the EU.
London was mentioned most in Forbes‘ report. That is what investors look at, it is not the conditions of living on a council estate in Coventry. Forbes is writing from the point of view of investment, not necessarily on what is good for the country as a whole.
Not the best gauge as to how well we are doing. GDP projections are more interesting. Or maybe employment and wage growth.
So you agree that they know what they are talking about but try to make out that they are wrong?Forbes is a well respected company for investment. Gig jobs and zero hour contracts would be a plus point, as would privatising the NHS, for investors. The conservative government is also a plus point for investors.
They are not biased in favour of remain or leave. They do mention the potential job losses in the City as the City is important to their bias, which is reporting to investors.
It depends on who you think should benefit from Brexit. The rich elite, or the „British people“.
The EU are biased to the EU of course. But some will call it the truth whilst trying to rubbish someone without bias.Forecasts are exactly that - they are rarely that accurate especially beyond the next year.
Interestingly the EU autumn projections have been released and the show for next year identical growth virtually for France, Italy and ourselves if you factor in the margin for error.
The projection for Spain looks highly dubious to me
Autumn 2017 Economic Forecast
So you agree that they know what they are talking about but try to make out that they are wrong?
Clueless.
They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.
Did you miss the news a couple of days ago where foreign banks won't need subsidiaries in the UK? But there again I suppose you don't know what this means.
They said where Germany is on the list. They list all countries. Red tape stops companies investing in Germany.
Did you miss the news a couple of days ago where foreign banks won't need subsidiaries in the UK? But there again I suppose you don't know what this means.
48 vs 52 suggests the division has already been created while we are in the EU - because they are trying to make things happen too quickly...like integration & expansion at the same time.The catering union here want at least 8%, which our employers would pay, if the workers accept more flexibility, No one wants 4% in this trade. Too little. So it is all relative. Changing the direction based on a small minority will cause division for years to come, especially if things go bandy.
The faceless beaurocrats are/have the equivalent of parliamentary whips. I am sure you know how they influenceWho votes on major issues? MEPs, the countries‘ leaders, or the faceless bureaucrats?
What did you explain?Who is clueless? I explained what the report was about. You didn’t. You just posted it and said it proves your argument.
No. Try again.I’ll take a guess.. it means foreign banks won’t need subsidiaries in the UK? Are you now going to say that means there won’t be thousands of job losses in the UK? Against Forbes predictions? Or why have you mentioned that?
How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?How is the German economy doing without being recommended by Forbes?
How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?
That is their point. Nobody is supposed to want to invest in the UK. But that is wrong.
What did you explain?
No. Try again.
So they won't need subsidiaries because they won't need subsidiaries?
It is all about how they are financed if you need a clue.
The faceless beaurocrats are/have the equivalent of parliamentary whips. I am sure you know how they influence
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
No. Please explain. We have already had to replace 20 EU offices and are recruiting thousands of civil servants ( faceless bureaucrats) to replace the EU faceless bureaucrats that used to fulfill these functions for us. I would like to know what the cost of replacing EU bureaucrats with UK offices will be at the end of this.
How many massive multinational companies are investing in Germany?
That is their point. Nobody is supposed to want to invest in the UK. But that is wrong.
Can't help with costings...but the faceless beaurocrats I am on about are those in & around the MEPS - bribing, bullying & cajoling them to do what the EU mandarins wantNo. Please explain. We have already had to replace 20 EU offices and are recruiting thousands of civil servants ( faceless bureaucrats) to replace the EU faceless bureaucrats that used to fulfill these functions for us. I would like to know what the cost of replacing EU bureaucrats with UK offices will be at the end of this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?