Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

mayonnaise

phillw

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

And yah boo to the statistics that prove otherwise!

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Cherry picking, massaging figures, choosing what they mean. Whether you're lying or deluding yourself won't help when brexit hits. I'll be ready with the popcorn, watching all the leavers minds implode. b-b-b-b-u-t

mayonnaise

phillw wrote: »

We joined because the country was in decline.

And that's a fact.
Why is this even being contested by the usual suspects?

Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the more than 40 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

Herzlos

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

New car registrations fell every year from 2003 to 2006. What was the economic Armageddon that prompted that?

No idea. Things went pretty wrong in 2007 though, and I remember how expensive used cars were for the few years after that.

phillw

mayonnaise wrote: »

And that's a fact.
Why is this even being contested by the usual suspects?

They don't want to face the true reason they voted to leave so they must derail the argument. It may not be something they are conscious of.

Herzlos wrote: »

No idea. Things went pretty wrong in 2007 though, and I remember how expensive used cars were for the few years after that.

I remember around that time someone drove his car to France on holiday and sold it while he was there. He reckoned he know lots of people who were selling their cars abroad too as they could make hundreds more. I have no idea why, but that would have also had an impact. The cars were supposedly then driven across eastern europe.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Now, which is the worst option?
More people buying cars - but increasingly using that nasty PCP or other nasty finance?
Or less people buying a new car?

Some people aren't happy with either.
Go figure.

You're suffering from black and white thinking. Most things are both good and bad at the same time.
People deciding they can no longer afford to buy a new car, is good because it shows responsibility. But bad because it means they have less money than they used to. Neither option affects my happiness.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I understand you don't buy new, so maybe you haven't spotted the big changes in duty.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4352428/The-22-new-cars-hardest-hit-car-tax-changes.html

It was bound to have an impact. I think the changes will affect the second hand market too, in a few years.

Very good point. That'll certainly have brought a lot of potential sales forward and will skew this years figures.

cogito

mayonnaise wrote: »

And that's a fact.
Why is this even being contested by the usual suspects?


https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

Try not to confuse correlation with causation.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

I didn't say it instantly reversed, but you'd have to be stupid to think that it would. The same that you would think that brexit would instantly cause the economy to collapse & that because it hadn't then brexit was obviously a good idea.



Massaging the figures. We joined because the country was in decline.



Of 28 countries, which it hopes to increase to as many countries as possible. That has to be morally better than being protectionist of 1 country? Right?



No, please do give a full response. It will give me something to laugh about. I seriously recommend you change your mind before the cognitive dissonance hits and you go through a mental break down, along with the other 52%.

The problem is we're not arguing over facts, we arguing over what those mean. To the xenophobes everything justifies brexit. To everyone else the same facts justifies being a member of the EU.

Do you actually know what protectionism is and how damaging it can be to the countries it is designed to protect?

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

Do you actually know what protectionism is and how damaging it can be to the countries it is designed to protect?

Yes, we can see that on the UK already; currency is weaker than before and service jobs are getting relocated.

kabayiri

cogito wrote: »

Do you actually know what protectionism is and how damaging it can be to the countries it is designed to protect?

You might have missed it, but there's a really good series on BBC2 at the moment, where they explore just what it takes to produce some of the food we take for granted.

So...in an episode they have Typhoo in Liverpool, and how careful they are when choosing their blend, which has to be reassessed every day.

Anyway, there's a part where they cut to Kenya, and we see a great discussion with the Kenyan farmer who is producing one set of leaves for Typhoo. The sense of pride and being part of something comes through.

I honestly think EU has got it wrong when it comes to agriculture and protection. If more people in Africa were able to earn a decent living there, fewer would make the risky journey to a frankly uncertain future in some dreary wet part of Europe.