economy

Daily Economy Thread

Started by Economy with 523 replies so far

Brexit ...........

 

Long term .... ???

 

Short term..... Trade agreements and import/export companies are gonna have to scramble to get buisness since they were operating under the EU rules.... all their trade and commerce has to be re-done ....

All countries doing buisness with Britain have to do things over too ...

The property values will be impacted too since foreign investment will have to look at the new laws....

The rest of the EU will have to adust since Britian was a big contributer and that revenue is now gone.

 


like a cat in a sil, I watch life, moving&still, proceed across my face, I leave no trace.My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Economy said:

What about job quality?

 

Here in North America it aint too hard to find a job. But finding a decent paying job (that pays more than $45,000 a year) is difficult

 

exports do indeed help in that regard usually as manufacturing tends to get better pay

For now it's less important to have a productive workforce. With an unemployment of over 10% and very low percentage of labor force participation, the focus shouldn't be on raising productivity and getting more high-paying jobs. Focus should be on getting rid of trade deficit, flexibilising and raising funds for infrastructure and lower taxes.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

Brexit ...........

 

Long term .... ???

 

Short term..... Trade agreements and import/export companies are gonna have to scramble to get buisness since they were operating under the EU rules.... all their trade and commerce has to be re-done ....

All countries doing buisness with Britain have to do things over too ...

The property values will be impacted too since foreign investment will have to look at the new laws....

The rest of the EU will have to adust since Britian was a big contributer and that revenue is now gone.

 

I have a feeling that if they do leavr in 2 years, not much will change. Its more speculation than anything

 

They already dont use the Euro. And if they leave they likely will try to maintain free trade with Europe anyway

 

Also the UK was never fully integrated in EU. That had some soverenty still over stuff like immigration for example

 

I dont think in practical terms that much will really change from their leave.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Economy said:

I have a feeling that if they do leavr in 2 years, not much will change. Its more speculation than anything

 

They already dont use the Euro. And if they leave they likely will try to maintain free trade with Europe anyway

 

Also the UK was never fully integrated in EU. That had some soverenty still over stuff like immigration for example

 

I dont think in practical terms that much will really change from their leave.

@Woolfsmck

Of course a lot will change. The UK will either join the single market or not. If they do, not a lot will change. The UK will no longer have a say in EU decision making, they will still pay a large amount to the EU for development funds and farmers and they will still have to take over many of the regulations. For this they would have to join a club of countries consisting out of Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland. It's not likely that these countries want the UK in their non-EU single market access club called EFTA, so that might not be possible. The UK would also have to join the freedom of movement principle, which allows migrants to enter the UK anyways. The EFTA has free trade agreements with more countries than the EU, for example Mexico and Canada.

The other option is not joining the single market. In that case the UK would have to renegotiate all trade deals, including a trade agreement with the EU. Political pressure from the public in the EU is high, and the public wants the EU to be strict towards the UK. The EU might not be easy in negotiations for a trade deal, and it could thus take many years. The UK has no trade agreement staff, and employees of the EU on trade from the UK are likely to stay working in the EU because a job in the EU pays way better than in the UK. For the years with no trade deal WTO regulations would be applied. This means tariffs. These would have a detrimental effect on the UK economy because the UK relies heavily on imports.

On migration: the UK would likely get fewer Polish migrants. This means that the UK will have a labour shortage in low-income jobs. This doesn't mean that wages will improve however. Wages in the sectors with the most migrants are expected to grow 0.2% to 0.6% overall. The Brexit itself is likely to reduce wages by 2%, so even english cleaners and truck drivers will see a decline in wages most likely.

Tourism to Britain is likely to suffer. Especially Italians are less likely to go on vacation to the UK.

Scotland, Wales and North Ireland will suffer the most. They lose a lot of regional development fundings from the EU. The UK government only wants to compensate for half of these funds.

For the world economy brexit isn't really that bad. The EU economy would suffer if the UK leaves the single market and even more if there's tariffs. The EU would also lose about 9 billion euros in funding, but the effect on the EU economy is likely to be low. No political uncertainty in the EU. Investors not really worried and first numbers show that Brexit vote had no effect on economy of Germany/France.

1 person likes this

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13700569/1/ford-drives-towards-buses-and-bikes-with-latest-deals.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

Ford Motor company is the first and oldest US auto company and the only one to resist the gov bailout program.

So their move towards mass transit and bicycles is interesting ....

1 person likes this

like a cat in a sil, I watch life, moving&still, proceed across my face, I leave no trace.My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13700569/1/ford-drives-towards-buses-and-bikes-with-latest-deals.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

Ford Motor company is the first and oldest US auto company and the only one to resist the gov bailout program.

So their move towards mass transit and bicycles is interesting ....

They could merely be expanding their business maybe no?

 

Plus some figures suggest car sales in America may be peaking for this economic cycle which might make them want to expand elsewhere to continue to grow

1 person likes this

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2016 at 4:25 PM, Economy said:

They could merely be expanding their business maybe no?

 

Plus some figures suggest car sales in America may be peaking for this economic cycle which might make them want to expand elsewhere to continue to grow

 

I think your right.  They think auto sales are going to flatline, so they are looking to reinvest their profits in other  transportation segments.   Kinda makes me think that Ford is  solid company under the hood.

Edited by Woolfsmck
1 person likes this

like a cat in a sil, I watch life, moving&still, proceed across my face, I leave no trace.My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW-FF304_bottom_20170207112840_MG.jpg?uu

 

interesting graph :sis: 

 

 

Income group, per-adult and before tax          China            USA            France

Total cumulated real growth between 1978 and 2015

Full population                                                     811%               59%             39%

Bottom 50%                                                          401%              -1%              39%

Middle 40%                                                           779%              42%             35%

Top 10%                                                                1294%             115%             44%

 

 

source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/income-share-of-bottom-50-is-collapsing-finds-researchers-including-piketty-2017-02-07

 

what's the point of substantially higher wage growth overall, when the bottom 90% has a substantially lower wage growth? (france vs US). I'd rather have an economy with 39% wage growth that is equally distributed than an economy with 59% wage growth where the bottom 50% is actually declining. People give France a lot of **** for their economy but it looks like it's much better than the US'. 

Edited by Luc
1 person likes this

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luc said:

MW-FF304_bottom_20170207112840_MG.jpg?uu

 

interesting graph :sis: 

 

 

Income group, per-adult and before tax          China            USA            France

Total cumulated real growth between 1978 and 2015

Full population                                                     811%               59%             39%

Bottom 50%                                                          401%              -1%              39%

Middle 40%                                                           779%              42%             35%

Top 10%                                                                1294%             115%             44%

 

 

source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/income-share-of-bottom-50-is-collapsing-finds-researchers-including-piketty-2017-02-07

 

what's the point of substantially higher wage growth overall, when the bottom 90% has a substantially lower wage growth? (france vs US). I'd rather have an economy with 39% wage growth that is equally distributed than an economy with 59% wage growth where the bottom 50% is actually declining. People give France a lot of **** for their economy but it looks like it's much better than the US'. 

But in total numbers I have a feeling the bottom 50% of Americans make more than the French

 

I dont care how big the gap is as long as the people at the bottom have a decent life

 

of course, too many poor ppl struggle in the US im not saying the life of ppl at the bottom there is good

 

im just saying that it can be misleading because 30% of 1000 is still higher than 50% of 500 for example

 

Of course theres another factor to consider. What free services are provided by Government that people dont have to pay out of their own pocket. That counts a lot too

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Economy said:

But in total numbers I have a feeling the bottom 50% of Americans make more than the French

 

I dont care how big the gap is as long as the people at the bottom have a decent life

 

of course, too many poor ppl struggle in the US im not saying the life of ppl at the bottom there is good

 

im just saying that it can be misleading because 30% of 1000 is still higher than 50% of 500 for example

 

Of course theres another factor to consider. What free services are provided by Government that people dont have to pay out of their own pocket. That counts a lot too

It's income before taxes, so it's grossly comparable even though France's social services are more extensive.

 

As far as I know the bottom 50% in France earns about the same as in the US, while working less hours. Minimum wage is higher in France, too. Unemployment still high though.

 

tbh I think growth is just as important as the results (actual income). Slow growth leads to political instability.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Luc said:

It's income before taxes, so it's grossly comparable even though France's social services are more extensive.

 

As far as I know the bottom 50% in France earns about the same as in the US, while working less hours. Minimum wage is higher in France, too. Unemployment still high though.

 

tbh I think growth is just as important as the results (actual income). Slow growth leads to political instability.

Do these numbers factor in the unemplyed who make $0?

 

im just wondering cuz France has an older population of ppl doing nothing, and a lower employment rate of people who are working age

 

ive always supported solid minimum wages tho (within reason). It gives ppl more income to spend and promotes productivity growth by encouraging companies to organize things in a way to get as much out of each worker as possible

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Do these numbers factor in the unemplyed who make $0?

 

im just wondering cuz France has an older population of ppl doung nothing, and a lower employment rate of people who are working

 

ive always supported solid minimum wages tho (within reason). It gives ppl more income to spend and promotes productivity growth by encouraging companies to organize things in a way to get as much out of each worker as possible

It's not just the way stuff is taxed in the US that's causing problems... in France when wages are too low, everybody protests till they get a higher wage. In the US there is no such thing. In France, there's a limit on how much a campaign can be financed. In the US, there's no limit and the presidencies mostly serve the donors' interests rather than the voters'. If you lose your job in France, your finances don't become messy all of a sudden. Productivity in France is very high thanks to a smaller working week, making life better for people. There's a few key things here that make France a better country to live in than the US if you're a part of the bottom 10% or even bottom 50%.

I'm not going to defend the state of France's economy (which is bad atm), but at least their economy is functioning for all people, not just the top. If an economy grows and the bottom 50% doesn't feel it, it doens't count in my opinion - the bottom 50% are the ones who actually benefit from increased wages.

France's population isn't aging that badly by the way, thanks to a high fertility rate.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Luc said:

It's not just the way stuff is taxed in the US that's causing problems... in France when wages are too low, everybody protests till they get a higher wage. In the US there is no such thing. In France, there's a limit on how much a campaign can be financed. In the US, there's no limit and the presidencies mostly serve the donors' interests rather than the voters'. If you lose your job in France, your finances don't become messy all of a sudden. Productivity in France is very high thanks to a smaller working week, making life better for people. There's a few key things here that make France a better country to live in than the US if you're a part of the bottom 10% or even bottom 50%.

I'm not going to defend the state of France's economy (which is bad atm), but at least their economy is functioning for all people, not just the top. If an economy grows and the bottom 50% doesn't feel it, it doens't count in my opinion - the bottom 50% are the ones who actually benefit from increased wages.

France's population isn't aging that badly by the way, thanks to a high fertility rate.

I agree the political system in the US sucks

 

 

back on topic tho. Do these nunbers factor in the unemployed? Cuz if ur only counting workers then sure maybe they are better off in france

 

but unemployed making $0 should also count as part of the bottom and theres more of those in france

 

if this graph only counts the work-force share of income that could skew the real reality

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now