Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 15:18:30 GMT
Grammatically, the "We" in the sentence refers to people in general. It's in the first person, plural, impersonal form. Just like when you use "you" in the second person, plural, impersonal. If you don't want to use pronouns; then you can use "People." Shall I amend my sentence so you'll understand -- or are you OK now? And I asked who is this 'we'. I don't need obfuscation on grammar. So you meant 'I' (like you used in your first sentence from that post), as there is nobody standing behind you backing up your ludicrous statement. You need to take lessons in technical English and Basic Comprehension. So. Everybody agrees that we should all buy indiscriminately. No selection? No criteria? At All? All countries import (or buy) goods and commodities discriminately. They do not buy from just anywhere. They set criteria and choose their trading partner -- pricing, tariffs, trade barriers, diplomatic relations, trade relations, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jul 1, 2023 16:27:14 GMT
Right after the referendum, the value of the pound fell dramatically from which we have never recovered. This raised import prices and consequently consumer prices. So, would a reversal of Brexit produce a reverse effect on the pound, i.e., would it raise the value of the pound and conversely, reduce consumer prices? uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/brexit-cranks-inflation-don-t-060028621.htmlIt’s Brexit that cranks up inflation. Don’t just blame the Bank
William Keegan The poor old Bank of England is now being blamed for the UK’s stubbornly high rate of inflation compared with our European (former!) partners and the rest of the Group of Seven leading industrial countries. It is all the Bank’s fault, we are told. Its job is supposed to be controlling inflation and it keeps getting it wrong. The truth that dare not speak its name in certain circles is that the reason why inflation is so much higher here than in other countries is Brexit; the referendum was followed by a dramatic fall in the pound, which raised all import prices, not least food from the EU. Not only did this have nothing to do with the Bank, but the governor at the time, Mark Carney, warned forcefully against Brexit. With its discouraging impact on the supply of EU workers on which so many British businesses depended, Brexit has aggravated inflationary pressures further, on top of the direct effect of higher import prices. It is not obvious to me that raising interest rates is the appropriate policy to deal with this: what is needed is nothing less than the reversal of Brexit.
Let’s face it. Brexit is the biggest act of self-harm this country has imposed upon itself since the English civil war of 1642–51. The Tories have severely damaged themselves and the nation they were supposed to govern. So what is the Labour party doing? Running scared. I should be very surprised if Labour did not win the next election with a working majority. However, ..... If Starmer refuses to shoot at an open goal, and fails to come out strongly with a policy of re-entering the single market on day one, he will inherit an economic disaster that is almost certain to inhibit the achievement of his many other laudable ambitions. Mr. Keegan is dangling the idea of turning back the clock by reversing a 7 year old decision and suggesting it would put the economies of the major countries back as they were. The ROW has moved on, covid has hugely affected each country differently, the rise of the unvestment in the electric vehicles and the Ukraune war has had a massive effect on the global economies. Of course he and we know all this. But i do think Brexit has contributed to the greater difficulties the UK is having in recovering its former economic solidity. The extra work involved in doing business wirh the UK costs money which, to stay competitive, companies have to take out of profits/shareholders and has discouraged serious foreign investmenr And please dont start a " yes but this or that investment of half a million just happened". I mean serious 7nvestment in the hundreds of mullions. In a time when the whole prodyction of vehicles is happening, including design and research, there should be billions pouring into the UK, world known for engineering. The UK still attracts investment in genetic research, but has lost the impetus in engineering. I also blame Brexit NOT for the result but for being the biggest distraction at a time when a steady reliable government should focus on taking advantage of the huge sums of money flowing around the island like a falling tide. I also blame the other B...Boris, who played at being king of the world while the ROW was getting up and getting on with getting on. None of which the Bank of England had any voice other than advice which was easily ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 1, 2023 17:06:31 GMT
Keeping repeating the same old thing is pointless - what is the problem with buying from anywhere who can supply what you want?. What countries don't you want to buy from? What is the problem with buying from anywhere who can supply what you want indiscriminate buying? If you don't see a problem with buying indiscriminately then you will never be an economist. Ever. So what countries do you not wish to buy from?
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jul 1, 2023 23:26:29 GMT
And I asked who is this 'we'. I don't need obfuscation on grammar. So you meant 'I' (like you used in your first sentence from that post), as there is nobody standing behind you backing up your ludicrous statement. You need to take lessons in technical English and Basic Comprehension. So. Everybody agrees that we should all buy indiscriminately. No selection? No criteria? At All? All countries import (or buy) goods and commodities discriminately. They do not buy from just anywhere. They set criteria and choose their trading partner -- pricing, tariffs, trade barriers, diplomatic relations, trade relations, etc. etc. etc. Says the person who puts 'so' into a sentence! Lol I asked you a simple question, like Pacifico has done, and you have been found wanting. It appears you have no real reason, other than an EU led agenda to be reliant on most goods from the EU - and pay more for them of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2023 9:26:45 GMT
You need to take lessons in technical English and Basic Comprehension. So. Everybody agrees that we should all buy indiscriminately. No selection? No criteria? At All? All countries import (or buy) goods and commodities discriminately. They do not buy from just anywhere. They set criteria and choose their trading partner -- pricing, tariffs, trade barriers, diplomatic relations, trade relations, etc. etc. etc. Says the person who puts 'so' into a sentence! Lol I asked you a simple question, like Pacifico has done, and you have been found wanting. It appears you have no real reason, other than an EU led agenda to be reliant on most goods from the EU - and pay more for them of course. So. I take it you're not interested? The two of you asked me a simple question. I gave the two of you a simple and direct answer. But, as usual, you guys don't even want to acknowledge, much less explore, the answer because clearly it derails your train of thought. You have this nasty habit of pivoting to questions that, although may be related, are beside the actual point of the discussion. It's not an EU-led agenda. The agenda is led by the demands of our own economy. It is the economy directing us to rely on the EU. Why is it that every single Brexit government pursued a trade deal with the EU despite the acrimony? Johnson, et al. could have just said Bye, Auf Wiedersehen, Au revoir to that dang, bloody, rule-making trade bloc and be done with it. None of them went that route. Why? Because they realised that Brexit for the sake of Brexit would be detrimental to the prosperity of the UK, that's why. Every single one of those prime ministers had to temper their political idealism and actively recognise that our trade with the EU was, is and will forever be the most beneficial for the UK.
|
|