Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

In the real world building a reputation for negotiating in bad faith isn't conducive to building trusting relationships with new partners.

Both sides have used the 'nothing is agreed until it's all agreed' line and it's a sign of poor negotiation skills to have to verbalise a threat which is implicit anyway. I was frankly embarrassed by Davis using the term within a few minutes of reaching agreement just to appease the brexiteers in his party.

In the real world your supposed reputation counts for little; we're talking trade and here money is king.
Nothing else.
And where money is concerned there is not and never has been trust involved, throughout history since skins were traded for flint in the stone age.

I wonder, have you been similarly embarrassed by (just as a few examples) Junckers "Pfft" at Theresa May's Brexit speech?
At Verhofstadt's "stupid Brexit"?
At Tusk with his moving "absolute deadline"?
No?
It wouldn't perchance be the result of these examples being from Eurocrats rather than Brexiters perchance?

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

No, nobody will care.
Who else are we in a union with that we could do the same to?

You don't have to be in any sort of union to renege on a debt.

Say your mates Dave & Bob start a venture together, Dave decides he wants out and will pay Bob £400 to cover his side of the debt. Dave then turns round and says "Well, you can't make me pay so sod off!"

Dave then walks over to you and says "Hey, do you want to get in on a venture? I'm good for the money, honest". Do you dive in or are you reluctant, based on what you just witnessed?

Since we're now going it alone, we cannot be seen to be that arrogant country that refuses to pay it's debts, or no-one will extend the same level of confidence with us (either declining deals, making sure we pay up front, or they have more protections).

The £40bn being floated is sod all on the world stage, it's cheaper for us to just pay to be seen to be in the right (because lets face it, we do owe the money even if legally it can't be enforced).

tracey3596

Herzlos wrote: »

You don't have to be in any sort of union to renege on a debt.

Say your mates Dave & Bob start a venture together, Dave decides he wants out and will pay Bob £400 to cover his side of the debt. Dave then turns round and says "Well, you can't make me pay so sod off!"

Dave then walks over to you and says "Hey, do you want to get in on a venture? I'm good for the money, honest". Do you dive in or are you reluctant, based on what you just witnessed?

Since we're now going it alone, we cannot be seen to be that arrogant country that refuses to pay it's debts, or no-one will extend the same level of confidence with us (either declining deals, making sure we pay up front, or they have more protections).

The £40bn being floated is sod all on the world stage, it's cheaper for us to just pay to be seen to be in the right (because lets face it, we do owe the money even if legally it can't be enforced).

Already explained and it is basically (what term did I see used before? Ah yes.) "puffery".

Nobody gives a hoot about your supposed reputation - but at least you're not waffling on about a divorce I suppose.
That's why the whole world trades with China - who break every copyright they can within their own country to the detriment of everybody else. It hasn't stopped their rise, has it?
They even make/made (for example) a pretty good Range Rover copy called the LandWind - but has it stopped parent Tata from trading the marque in China? Of course not.

You just want the £40 billion to seem the cheaper option for your Europhile agenda which in itself is fair enough, but for these reasons is wrong.

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

You don't have to be in any sort of union to renege on a debt.

Say your mates Dave & Bob start a venture together, Dave decides he wants out and will pay Bob £400 to cover his side of the debt. Dave then turns round and says "Well, you can't make me pay so sod off!"

Dave then walks over to you and says "Hey, do you want to get in on a venture? I'm good for the money, honest". Do you dive in or are you reluctant, based on what you just witnessed?

Since we're now going it alone, we cannot be seen to be that arrogant country that refuses to pay it's debts, or no-one will extend the same level of confidence with us (either declining deals, making sure we pay up front, or they have more protections).

The £40bn being floated is sod all on the world stage, it's cheaper for us to just pay to be seen to be in the right (because lets face it, we do owe the money even if legally it can't be enforced).

You're trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Yet again, in the eventuality that the unlikely scenario happens it would be the fault of both the UK and of the EU for failing to agree.
As ilovehouses said, both will suffer (and he should note that no-one here has said otherwise).

We owe nothing unless agreement is reached that we owe something.
Since you like such scenarios, you don't pay to walk out the shop unless you buy something and so far we have bought nothing.
Unlike the EU that hold billions of UK funds in the EIB.

Herzlos

tracey3596 wrote: »

That's why the whole world trades with China - who break every copyright they can within their own country to the detriment of everybody else. It hasn't stopped their rise, has it?

Do they trade with China in the same way that they would if China didn't violate copyright so much? That's my point, not that they trade.

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

Do they trade with China in the same way that they would if China didn't violate copyright so much? That's my point, not that they trade.

Your point is (forgive me) pointless; does China care?
Is China not one of the fastest-growing economies on planet Earth?
So tell us, what difference has it made to China?

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

Your point is (forgive me) pointless; does China care?
Is China not one of the fastest-growing economies on planet Earth?
So tell us, what difference has it made to China?

Does China care? Probably not.

Does the rest of the world care? Absolutely; China is subject to all sorts of export restrictions when it comes to technology/IP, and there are plenty of companies who either won't send their IP to China or will go to extra lengths to secure it.

So the difference to China is that it gets less international trade/service work than if it respected IP. That said, the IP abuse provides a huge boon to the local economy but they cancel out.

To think that Chinese trade is unaffected by it's Copyright (and worker) abuse is to fail to understand anything about trade with China.

So again; trade will happen with an untrustworthy UK. But those doing the trading will be more wary than otherwise and that could have consequences. Same if we continue to come across as incompetent.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

With respect you don't seem to have the foggiest how important reputation and trust is in business. You wouldn't get far as a flint trader if you couldn't be relied upon to ship on time, in full and pay outstanding invoices. Trust has been the basis of trade for thousands of years.



No because this is the first time I've come any across them. I don't care much for Junckers and Tusk - I'd class those comments as being crass rather than evidence of negotiating in bad faith though. Deserving of a rolling of eyes rather than a cringe.

With respect the rolling of eyes is at your post, sadly. Try reading the earlier posts about China for example.

Said flint trader would exchange his flints for furs if the fur trader wanted flints and the flint-trader had flints with which to trade. No flints or/and no furs = no trade. It's really that simple and all you're doing is trying to make more of it than there really is.

As well as the China examples there are more, but I suspect that they too might be disregarded.
For example North Korea who, despite UN sanctions, also sees greater GDP growth than the EU; do you think that this can be done without trade? Do you think North Korea has a reputation of being trustworthy? Only at testing nuclear weapons and rockets, perhaps.

Or how about Russia, under USA/EU sanctions and very trustworthy; they've not invaded anybody for example to grab what they want. Their growth in 2017 was only slightly below that of the UK.

In fact if we look at countries which should be as you say reputable and trustworthy vs China and North Korea, their growth suggests that the UK would be better of if it WAS classified as disreputable and untrustworthy.
Yay.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

If a country has a terrible reputation for stealing IP and meeting agreed specifications then however they're doing now they're not doing as well as they could.

And again is that not leaving tremendous scope for future possibilities of increasing how well they are doing?
If they did any better now I suppose you would no doubt be crying "overheating"!

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

It really doesn't matter who thinks what.

In the business world, it really does.

Trade will carry on with maybe a few adjustments - but then time itself has throughout history caused adjustments in trade any way.

Yup, trade will continue.

You're failing to realise that, despite your misconceptions, China has achieved growth way beyond that of the EU for decades and any perceived disadvantages as you suggest have not hindered their rise.

I didn't fail to realize that at all, I just didn't cover growth as it was irrelevant.

China produces valuable services, and it trades. That's a given, and it's also a given the same will be true of everyone, even North Korea.

China has a horrendous reputation for Copyright violation and workers rights. Because of that it gets less trade than it otherwise would (from companies refusing to send work to China, to companies not being allowed to). The loss is impossible to quantify.

If the UK gets a reputation for agreeing to something and then reneging, or making threats, then it'll cost it good will and some quantifiable trade.

Would you continue trading as comfortably with someone who fails to uphold their end of the deal?