Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About slawek

  • Rank
    HPC Senior Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nissan itself is a third of the UK car industry, so not an irrelevant manufacturer. TBH I don't think my post is of much lower standards than your from two weeks ago, when you were jumping on some unconfirmed rumours that Nissan considering convincing Renault to move some production to the UK. How on earth did you think this could work without a free trade with the EU? In my post I was just matching your sensational tone. Credit for wrapping your post in irony, which confused some Leavers. I admit I was much more primitive, for which I apology. "This is an example of outright media lies. We all know that Brexit is bad and, in particular, that the motor industry will flee our shores in no time. And yet here we have a blatant disregard of that position and daring to suggest - and in the open! - that some manufacturers will move to the UK - a total absurdity!"
  2. Not long ago a news that Nissan is going to close a Spanish factory but not a UK one was a proof that Brexit works. It turns out that this depends on the UK signing a FTA with the EU so there are no tariffs. The car manufacturing is a very competitive industry. 10% tariffs will make a big scale car manufacturing in the UK unprofitable as the local market is too small. The only advantage of the UK, its proximity to a big market (the EU), won't help if there are tariffs. There are cheaper countries that have no trade barriers with the EU. In general the car industry will shrink globally due to Covid-19. The car manufactures will close factories that are not economically viable. The UK with its Brexit handicap will be a prime target.
  3. Bye, bye the UK car manufacturing. "The UK's largest car manufacturing plant is "unsustainable" if the UK leaves the European Union without a trade deal, owner Nissan says." "Ashwani Gupta said that Nissan's commitment could not be maintained if there was not tariff-free EU access." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52900528
  4. Those are valid points and can explain why some people voted for Brexit. However it is incomplete, it fails to explain why Brexit is an English phenomena. The missing bit is nationalism, mostly a hurt nationalistic pride. England once ruled the world but since the British Empire collapsed it has been in a long term decline. It is difficult for some people to accept England (Britain) is now one of many, not an special one. The difference between Remainers and Leavers is the first group know this won't work. It is just a Leavers' fantasy driven by nostalgia and for some by an economic decline too. There is no way back to the old way, the world has changed. Brexit is going to be a hard way to acknowledge this. What about assessment criteria? Are a weak pound, low GDP, weakened standing on the global stage, economic problems unresolved, a failure to deliver promised trade deals etc enough to say Brexit is a complete fiasco? The problem with Leavers is they will not acknowledge this. Remainers know that jumping off the cliff will not end well. Leavers will jump and claim all the bruising and broken legs are temporary, will make us strong and we should jump again. There are no rational arguments for Brexit, it is all based on feelings and false claims.
  5. You have made a claim "If brexit cannot be defined then we cannot judge it as a project, only an approach. And, those effects should be assesseed." How do you know we can judge Brexit as an approach if you don't know what this approach is? In fact Leavers have made many promises sometimes contradicting. Some people made a decision to support it based on those promises. It is then fair to use those promises to judge if Brexit was a success. Using this assessment approach it is rather clear Brexit has been a failure. The current outcome, no deal or some basic FTA with the EU, was not what was promised.
  6. I see you expected than more racism, authoritarianism and conscientiousness. Leavers like to put themselves into well structured, stable environment, which provide them safety. Rules are rules. No outsiders. A strong leader (remember TM's leather trousers). They also rely more on intuition, stereotypes than logical thinking. Remainers are more neurotic. A lack of rules make them more anxious, moody less secure.
  7. Who is going to buy in the EU cars 10% more expensive? Will the UK devalue its currency to be more competitive?
  8. Another reason for the EU to include a watertight LPF clause in the agreement.
  9. Other divides Attitude to racism. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zcm4bm26v6/Internal_181025_Racism_w.pdf https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/personality-authoritarianism-and-cognition-in-brexit/
  10. How is this approach defined? What are criteria to asses this approach?
  11. I agree that demand for safe assets will definitely lower long term bond yields with constrained supply. The problem is to show that demand was higher relatively to supply and explain why there was as higher demand. Safe assets are not the same risk free assets. They are just much safer relatively to other assets. Safe assets growth is not constrained by the economy growth even if you restrict safe assets to government bonds. The only constrain is servicing cost relatively to GDP. You can't use too much GDP to pay for debt off. In theory a ratio of safe assets to GDP can go to infinity as you can back debt by income infinitely in the future. Servicing cost is depended on rates, so higher rates will limit the safe assets if you impose a maturity limit. There is nothing special about zero bound apart of that that is imposed on CBs by cash. CBs could keep short term rates at some level higher than long term yields (inverted curve). This would force safe asset buyers to use bank deposit or short term bonds instead. The shift in the demand would cause the curve to return its upward sloping state. The imbalance would be resolved by the wealth destruction due to a deflationary collapse. What CBs are doing is postponing this by lowering rates; they can do this until rates reach zero. They would need to remove cash zero bound to go further down into the negative territory. QE helps by lowering long term yields more and creating more bank deposits, which pushes safe asset investors into bank deposits. CBs can also buy risky assets, which can provide put for their prices, making them less risky. This creates an everything bubble and destroys the currency at the end. Another way to rebalance is to tax rich, redistributing wealth back to poor.
  12. Those two are not very relevant to our discussion 1) https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp2019-28.pdf - An estimation of the on the run liquidity premium of the Swiss bonds 2) https://www.nber.org/papers/w18732 - about private safe assets and their impact on the fragility of the financial system (aftermath of 2008 crisis) This one seems to be most relevant https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.31.3.29 It presents a theory that demand for safe assets lowers long term bond yields. You can't argue with that but the paper doesn't really provide empirical evidence that explains rates going down since 1980, demand for safe assets higher than the supply. The author blames the growth in the emerging markets for higher demand for safe assets making an adhoc assumption that demand for safe assets is proportional to global output, providing no data to support this. As we know the main driver of the EM growth was China, which has a very tightly controlled capital market and demand for foreign assets is only limited to managing currency reserves. Chinese buying was concentrated in 2000s and even then it was only 1-2 trillion, not really comparable with the growth of safe asset (Euro area bonds, securisation in the US etc).
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.