Scrutable

Coff
https://www.ft.com/content/bdc9f940-bb9 ... 00d509634e

Coff
https://www.ft.com/content/bdc9f940-bb9 ... 00d509634e


ETA if not accessible, the article should be accessible here as a pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ka975s787dk5j ... s.pdf?dl=0

My source is the Office of National Statistics showing business investment, both donestic and inbound. It goes back decades snd ends in q3 2019. The FT article uses data which only covers inward investment, has a shorter timescale, the rest being padded out with journalistic opinion.

I like my source better, unless you see a flaw in the data?

Doesn't account for the weak pound

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:00 pm It goes back decades snd ends in q3 2019. The FT article uses data which only covers inward investment, has a shorter timescale.

Firstly, you raised inbound investment, so is in response to that; and in looking at the of effects of the referendum, surely even you can see that looking at the shorter timescale is more relevant.

There were multiple posts criticising the choice of inbound investment because people thought it would correlate with people buying up properties etc..

I gave you something thats not foreign-weighted and which is purely non-residential business investment by the ONS definition.

There has been no collapse in business investment. Its another remainer myth.

Looking at longer timescales is better because it gives you a clearwr dea about what 'normal' is. Peoplw choose pointlessly short timesclaes all the time when they wnt to create panic about a change that turns out to be relatively small and normal in the big scheme.

Nice try.

I honestly think it's a sound data source to use.

Could that drop off a cliff when we officially leave? Sure. After the transition period? Sure. I dont think it will. Lets see.

Looks like an OK metric to me.

Shows how inbound investment recovered fairly steadily after the 2008-9 disruption, and then did indeed flatline/fall slightly since the summer of 2016...

<cough> weak pound leads to inward money and we can't actually tell whether it's increased, flatlined or decreased until we factor the relative strength of the pound in over the time series. complicated. </cough>

Also would be good to compare this timeseries against the other G7 countries to try and partially replicate what the Bloomberg journalist did. Then we can see whether the "historical alignment" he claims has been broken.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:26 am <cough> weak pound leads to inward money and we can't actually tell whether it's increased, flatlined or decreased until we factor the relative strength of the pound in over the time series. complicated. </cough>

Also would be good to compare this timeseries against the other G7 countries to try and partially replicate what the Bloomberg journalist did. Then we can see whether the "historical alignment" he claims has been broken.

The graph is inflation adjusted. Investment is still higher now than it was before 2014, and currently trending up.

Having a weak pound is an advantage sometimes. It's a serious error of thinking to believe strong currency=good in all circumstances (that's one of the ways Thatcher wrecked the North and the Midlands). Our economy desperately needs to rebalance between making money and spending it on imports and this is one of the less disruptive ways of achieving it. Investors still seem to think that investing in the UK is a reasonably profitable thing to do.

Inflation adjusted isn't the same as adjusting for the fall of the pound.

I know a weak currency can be beneficial. It encourages people to spend money in your country for example - that's the point.

Until you show me your graph factoring in the relative strength of the pound against the dollar, the Euro and the other majors it's impossible to tell whether inward investment has actually increased or decreased. I said it was complicated.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:27 am Inflation adjusted isn't the same as adjusting for the fall of the pound.

Isn't it? remember any profit/revenue extracted from the investments will be in pounds too. Inflation adjustment means that what you can buy with those pounds is normalised against currency shifts.

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:20 pm

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:27 am Inflation adjusted isn't the same as adjusting for the fall of the pound.

Isn't it? remember any profit/revenue extracted from the investments will be in pounds too. Inflation adjustment means that what you can buy with those pounds is normalised against currency shifts.

If you're saying that investors are making cheap investments in the UK because the pound crashed then fair enough - but I'm not sure that says anything about increased confidence in the UK, just that we're selling at knock down prices.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:42 pm

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:20 pm

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:27 am Inflation adjusted isn't the same as adjusting for the fall of the pound.

Isn't it? remember any profit/revenue extracted from the investments will be in pounds too. Inflation adjustment means that what you can buy with those pounds is normalised against currency shifts.

If you're saying that investors are making cheap investments in the UK because the pound crashed then fair enough - but I'm not sure that says anything about increased confidence in the UK, just that we're selling at knock down prices.

The reduced pound has not devalued the return they think they will get. If it was just a question of currency depreciation, you'd buy cheap but also expect to get less back.

There was a recent post on eureferendum.com and was covered on bs

The Brussels Effect



… examines the unprecedented and deeply underestimated global power that the European Union is exercising through its legal institutions and standards, and how it successfully exports that influence to the rest of the world. Without the need to use international institutions or seek other nations’ cooperation, the EU has a strong and growing ability to promulgate regulations that become entrenched in the legal frameworks of developed and developing markets alike, leading to a notable "Europeanization" of many important aspects of global commerce...

... this Article highlights a deeply underestimated aspect of European power that the discussion on globalization and power politics overlooks: Europe’s unilateral power to regulate global markets. The European Union sets the global rules across a range of areas, such as food, chemicals, competition, and the protection of privacy. EU regulations have a tangible impact on the everyday lives of citizens around the world.3 Few Americans are aware that EU regulations determine the makeup they apply in the morning,4 the cereal they eat for breakfast,5 the software they use on their computer,6 and the privacy settings they adjust on their Facebook page.7 And that’s just before 8:30 AM. The EU also sets the rules governing the interoffice phone directory they use to call a coworker.8 EU regulations dictate what kind of air conditioners Americans use to cool their homes9 and why their children no longer find soft plastic toys in their McDonald’s Happy Meals.10 This phenomenon— the “Brussels Effect”—is the focus of this Article...

All the regional superpowers influence their trading areas in these ways, because this is the price of FTAs with them for countries without that level of economic power. Plucky little Blighty just gets to choose which one it is subservient to as it Takes Back Control.

GeenDienst wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:01 am All the regional superpowers influence their trading areas in these ways, because this is the price of FTAs with them for countries without that level of economic power. Plucky little Blighty just gets to choose which one it is subservient to as it Takes Back Control.

Not according to the chancellor. He's crazy like a fox!

https://mobile.twitter.com/BethRigby/st ... 3806825472

Bye bye car industry, Airbus...

GeenDienst wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:51 pm Bye bye car industry, Airbus...

Hopefully all talk, but I have me doubts.

We wont be subservient to the EU. We will be striking a balance between US, EU and Transpacific needs, and have some more freedom to bend the way that suits the UK best.

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:10 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:01 am All the regional superpowers influence their trading areas in these ways, because this is the price of FTAs with them for countries without that level of economic power. Plucky little Blighty just gets to choose which one it is subservient to as it Takes Back Control.

Not according to the chancellor. He's crazy like a fox!

https://mobile.twitter.com/BethRigby/st ... 3806825472

These, of course, are his new principles and beliefs. They will take some time to bed in and fit him properly.

Airbus in much stronger position than Boeing
after Boeing used political clout to adjust certification demands.

I feel somewhat certain that Airbus will not yield to political demands of a similar kind that contributed to the present crisis at their competitor. This means accept European standards and certification authorities or be excluded from the supply chain.

In database thread on this forum sheldrake suggested:

does this data need to be secure or can it be dumped somewhere public ?

e.g. are we talking about personal or financial records, or is it some non-confidential experimental data you just don't want people to be able to edit unless you've given them a password ?

Would sheldrake offer a database as a product wihout possibility of secure handling and keeping of the data?
What kind of customer might this be aimed at??

bmforre wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:41 pm Airbus in much stronger position than Boeing
after Boeing used political clout to adjust certification demands.

I feel somewhat certain that Airbus will not yield to political demands of a similar kind that contributed to the present crisis at their competitor. This means accept European standards and certification authorities or be excluded from the supply chain.

Airbus don't need to do anything apart from pull the wing facility out of the UK - they simply will not be able to manufacture stuff for their planes here, full stop. Moot point as they're almost ready to transfer production of the much smaller A320 wings to Spain and China, leaving the only big problem the supply of engines. RR have been busy shifting component certification (and a lot of manufacture) to Germany and France for the last 3 years so they will soon be in a position to begin assembly and leave just the service staff in the UK.

What remains to be seen is what will the fuckwits in charge do to Airbus UK's defence arm, which is basically tied to the UK.