UK Leaves the EU - What happens next?

[Murray]

There's a really good movies/documentaries called "the Money Masters" and "The Secret of Oz" both by William T. Still

(just on the topic of how money works)

 

[bonusmedia]

No, it's impossible.

For a start, new money only comes from new debt.
Whenever money is created the value of money in circulation is devalued, ie, inflation.
There is no new wealth, only fluctuation in value of current assets and movement of money.

Consider that wealth is linked to every square metre of land on the planet. And there is a finite number of metres, therefore only so much wealth. And there is a certain amount of money in circulation.
You could say ok, let's flatten some mountains and put the rocks into the sea and make more land. Great! But remember there's only a certain amount of money in circulation, therefore the value per square metre of land has gone down. The total remains the same.

The money supply is being added to at a fantastic rate, which comes from more debt...imagine what's going to happen when interest rates go up even say, 2%. There's going to be financial carnage. And it's unavoidable the way things are.

I know you won't believe it coming from me, but please independently verify it because it's important that people get it.

There certainly is new wealth. Value and hence wealth is constantly being created. It is not zero sum. It isn't even limited by land or natural resources - for example media is one of our biggest exports.

If you have land worth £100,000 and you use materials worth £50,000 and labour worth £50,000 to create a house worth £250,000, you have created wealth.

 

[bonusmedia]

It's not that I don't believe things because they come from you - although given some of the disturbing views you hold I'm probably more skeptical than normal. I don't believe things where there is a lack of evidence/logic/reason to believe them.

I think when you ask me to independently verify something what you're actually asking is for me to look for sources that back you up, since you don't believe or agree with 'mainstream' sources or 'experts'

 

[bonusmedia]

There's a really good movies/documentaries called "the Money Masters" and "The Secret of Oz" both by William T. Still

(just on the topic of how money works)

William T Still is a conspiracy theorist who believes ancient secret societies are creating a New World Order. He has some bizarre ideas about religion and symbolism which wouldn't be out of place in a Dan Brown novel. He is not a reliable source of information.

 

[BREWSTERS]

There certainly is new wealth. Value and hence wealth is constantly being created. It is not zero sum. It isn't limited by land or natural resources - for example media is one of our biggest exports.

If you have land worth £100,000 and you use materials worth £50,000 and labour worth £50,000 to create a house worth £250,000, you have created wealth.

But the creation of that house devalues all other houses by a tiny tiny fraction. The builder of that house has made money, but 20m (if in the UK) other properties have each lost maybe 40p in value. That doesn't get noticed in the scheme of things because;
A. It's such a small amount
B. Inflation masks it by increasing the price (not the value) of the other houses.

Media might be one of our biggest exports (Is it? Learnt something there!) and that's where the movement of money comes in. Cash has moved but no reciprocal movement of assets.

Also, I've never mentioned zero-sum....it certainly isn't that.

Bonus, please look into this elsewhere if you don't accept it from me.

 

[bonusmedia]

But the creation of that house devalues all other houses by a tiny tiny fraction. The builder of that house has made money, but 20m (if in the UK) other properties have each lost maybe 40p in value. That doesn't get noticed in the scheme of things because;
A. It's such a small amount
B. Inflation masks it by increasing the price (not the value) of the other houses.

Media might be one of our biggest exports (Is it? Learnt something there!) and that's where the movement of money comes in. Cash has moved but no reciprocal movement of assets.

Also, I've never mentioned zero-sum....it certainly isn't that.

Bonus, please look into this elsewhere if you don't accept it from me.

What you're suggesting there is that the housing market is zero-sum! :-(

There is value and wealth created in intangible assets - hence the £84 billion of value created each year by UK creative industries

 

[Murray]

William T Still is a conspiracy theorist who believes ancient secret societies are creating a New World Order. He has some bizarre ideas about religion and symbolism which wouldn't be out of place in a Dan Brown novel. He is not a reliable source of information.

It's easy to dismiss things as a conspiracy theory, it's also easy to dismiss someones opinion on a subject because you don't agree with them on another

I would also suggest watching "Hidden Secrets Of Money" by Mike Maloney, that's also very good

 

[Edwin]

So this happened...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-urges-anti-brexit-alliance-general-election
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

Hard to believe that less than a week ago we had a functioning conservative government (and economy!), an opposition, and a two-ish party system. Now we just have a chaotic mess...

The real question is: once the parties start to splinter, how many pieces will they end up in? Do you foresee two general "blocks" with opposing views (e.g. on leaving the EU) or a jigsaw of smaller bits, forming alliances of convenience and glowering at all the other bits the rest of the time?

 

[bonusmedia]

It's easy to dismiss things as a conspiracy theory, it's also easy to dismiss someones opinion on a subject because you don't agree with them on another

I would also suggest watching "Hidden Secrets Of Money" by Mike Maloney, that's also very good

Actually it's often quite hard to dismiss conspiracy theories even with the best possible evidence - because lots of people find them very attractive.

People like having simple explanations and someone to blame.

Anyway, we're off topic again.

 

[Edwin]

Perhaps everyone could move all the conspiracy theory stuff off to here?
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/the-conspiracy-theory-thread-have-at-it.140788/

I thought we'd agreed a little less than 24 hours ago to keep it out of this thread.

 

[BREWSTERS]

N

What you're suggesting there is that the housing market is zero-sum! :-(

There is value and wealth created in intangible assets - hence the £84 billion of value created each year by UK creative industries

No, because due to monetary inflation those 20m houses have gone up in price devaluing the currency. Meanwhile anyone buying (first time buyers / buy to leters) buying with a mortgage (debt) are adding to the overall debt. Because of the debt element it can never be zero-sum.

Intangibles are just that once it all comes down to it. As a side note, how the hell has 'goodwill' become an entry on company balance sheets? Ridiculous.

The impressive £84b you mention isn't creation of wealth, it's movement of money. Value, yes, as in value-for-money, because it may have lead to further inward movement of money to the buyer of that creative. But it isn't creating wealth.

 

[BREWSTERS]

So this happened...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-urges-anti-brexit-alliance-general-election
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

Hard to believe that less than a week ago we had a functioning conservative government (and economy!), an opposition, and a two-ish party system. Now we just have a chaotic mess...

The real question is: once the parties start to splinter, how many pieces will they end up in? Do you foresee two general "blocks" with opposing views (e.g. on leaving the EU) or a jigsaw of smaller bits, forming alliances of convenience and glowering at all the other bits the rest of the time?

I hope, that other countries will follow suit and vote the EU out of existence. Centralised governance works upto a point but it definately has its limits. Would you like to see one world government?

 

[BREWSTERS]

Perhaps everyone could move all the conspiracy theory stuff off to here?
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/the-conspiracy-theory-thread-have-at-it.140788/

I thought we'd agreed a little less than 24 hours ago to keep it out of this thread.

This isn't theory - just having a friendly chat about finance which (admittedly tenuously) has a link to the overall discussion.

 

[Murray]

Actually it's often quite hard to dismiss conspiracy theories

But as soon as something gets labelled a "conspiracy theory" most people take that as canon that it's not true

Like if you label someone a "troll" then that means nothing they say is to be taking seriously anymore

Labels are quite powerful things

 

[bonusmedia]

N
No, because due to monetary inflation those 20m houses have gone up in price devaluing the currency. Meanwhile anyone buying (first time buyers / buy to leters) buying with a mortgage (debt) are adding to the overall debt. Because of the debt element it can never be zero-sum.

Intangibles are just that once it all comes down to it. As a side note, how the hell has 'goodwill' become an entry on company balance sheets? Ridiculous.

The impressive £84b you mention isn't creation of wealth, it's movement of money. Value, yes, as in value-for-money, because it may have lead to further inward movement of money to the buyer of that creative. But it isn't creating wealth.

Your suggestion that the gain in value made by a property developer is precisely balanced out by the decline in value of all other properties is a textbook example of a zero sum game. The 'game' considers just the interaction of those parties in a closed loop - not external factors such as inflation.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to assign a value to an intangible asset? Are you suggesting valuable assets are not 'wealth'?

Perhaps you have a particularly unusual definition of the word 'wealth'. I think most people understand the concept of the creation of wealth by the addition of value.

 

[Toonz]

So this happened...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-urges-anti-brexit-alliance-general-election
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

Hard to believe that less than a week ago we had a functioning conservative government (and economy!), an opposition, and a two-ish party system. Now we just have a chaotic mess...

The real question is: once the parties start to splinter, how many pieces will they end up in? Do you foresee two general "blocks" with opposing views (e.g. on leaving the EU) or a jigsaw of smaller bits, forming alliances of convenience and glowering at all the other bits the rest of the time?

If there's a splintering of the left, I just hope we get PR - unless there's a simultaneous merging of parties too.

What happens on the right will depend on what kind of relationship the Tories end up choosing with the EU. (Will we still call Ukip a right wing party if it goes after the old Labour heartlands?)

I've been struggling to think how Labour could break up as there are so many competing wings of it now that it's no longer appealing to anyone with much force. With his critiques of austerity, Corbyn should be appealing to the heartlands - but his Islingtonian trendy causes and identity politics prevent him from reaching them. On the other hand, he's no Blairite either.

I think the Lib Dems would be open to some major realignment - they have so little to lose now.

 

[grandwizard]

Right, I am going to call it. The UK will Never Leave the EU. The Leave campaign team are now the "Not so fast team we didn't really mean it " probing ways to wiggle out of this mess.

 

[Edwin]

Right, I am going to call it. The UK will Never Leave the EU. The Leave campaign team are now the "Not so fast team we didn't really mean it " probing ways to wiggle out of this mess.

I think that's been fairly obvious ever since funereal Boris Johnson and undertaker Michael Gove had their more-subdued-than-a-crypt victory press conference.

The real trick now for them is how to end up losing the leadership election so that somebody else ends up with a faceful of omelette, then slowly rebuild a career on the back benches.

 

[Edwin]

I used not to be a fan of proportional representation, but recent events have made me a convert.

If we had PR - real PR - then it should be impossible for any one party to form a government, and that would put a natural break on the "extremes" and "fringe" elements of the parties. Instead, there would be a need for a new kind of politics: consensus-building, and long-termist (rather than thinking about a single parliament) since parties might have to prop each other up for decades.

 

[Edwin]

If there's a splintering of the left, I just hope we get PR - unless there's a simultaneous merging of parties too.

What happens on the right will depend on what kind of relationship the Tories end up choosing with the EU. (Will we still call Ukip a right wing party if it goes after the old Labour heartlands?)

I've been struggling to think how Labour could break up as there are so many competing wings of it now that it's no longer appealing to anyone with much force. With his critiques of austerity, Corbyn should be appealing to the heartlands - but his Islingtonian trendy causes and identity politics prevent him from reaching them. On the other hand, he's no Blairite either.

I think the Lib Dems would be open to some major realignment - they have so little to lose now.

I am not saying it's likely, but I can just about see a new party made up of (some labour) + Lib Dems + (some conservatives) where the (some labour) and (some conservatives) are a sub-set of the Remain camp supporters in each of the two parties.