remind me mika you were the one who was glad that the terrorists hit brussels because it's a seat of EU power, yes?
I was happy they struck Bruxelles because then the EU bureaucrats got literally into the line of fire themselves. This is not something that usually happens to the politicians, and tends to hammer out a few kinks of the corkscrews and perhaps instate a little bit of common sense too. So they got to live with the results of their own immigration agenda for once. That's a win in my books. It didn't happen in some distant member state, it happened to them!
That's actually not necessarily a bad thing. It's about time the financial industry has to shed that excessive bloat. And from what I heard from my investor friends, they are actually planning to buy right now.
You've only confirmed you have no idea what you are talking about by posting this. Do not reenter this conversation until you have learned enough to not make a fool of yourself.
The sheer brilliance of this is snow-blinding! With this razor sharp analysis I'd better find some Quickplast to those cuts!
I suppose you know how well the financial industry and real industry mix together? Or the effect of the UK housing prices towards creating new jobs?
To make a couple of things clear to start with:
a) Have you actually ever been in EU?
b) Have you ever been in the UK?
c) Have you ever worked in the EU?
d) Have you ever worked in the UK?
e) Have you ever worked
for the EU?
The answer is yes to all five from my part. Bear in mind my family has ran banking business for a generation. Not my generation, but you tend to pick up some useful stuff... My advise would be to think before posting next time.
There is an argument to be made that the financial sector is bloated far in excess of the actual value it provides to society, but that's not one to be made here or now. The problem is that, if a shrinkage is necessary, it is better to shrink gradually than in a short sharp drop. And while we're committed to anticapitalist daydreams, capitalists snapping up businesses for bargain-bin prices should not fill us with joy.
Finally, the financial sector is one of the UK's primary economic drivers. If it crashes and departs for Frankfurt or Paris, the british recession will get much worse, and the Leave campaigns promises of greater economic freedom will evaporate.
The E's answer warrants a reply as well. You exactly made the connection to what I was saying. However, I dispute that the financial sector bloat is not relevant. It is very highly so. The problem with gradual shrinking to begin with is that it simply will not happen. It just wont - every single time it has been suggested and attempted in history, the rich part of the society has never given in to what is essentially a reduction of their status (be it measured in money or anything else). To make it simple, how many Deutsche Bank CEOs have been fired due to their involvement in loaning to Greece before that crisis started? The answer would be "none, because they did not break the law", right?
Thus there are two real world options left to reboot the economy: re-distribute the wealth (tends to be violent), and as second, the stock market meltdowns. In this perspective, the meltdown should be seen as a good thing, if handled well, this will prevent the violent re-distribution. Yes, some period of time will be tight, but as the demand gradually picks up, this will stabilize the system to a sustainable level.
Those greedy capitalists capturing the cheap stocks prevents the stock market from melting more! It's part of the corrective movement. Yes, some elitists have likely dropped because of this, but that's class migration for you. But this was actually supposed to happen, right?
Well, then back to the question on how this is relevant to the UK. Well, the financial sector has resided in London City for quite some time. Given the nowadays way how it works, one of the areas the financial sector readily engages is the housing (another is insurances as that is easily expandable business without a big need for infrastructure), as this is a basic need everyone must have and selling houses does not actually require big infrastructure. Due to intertwining of loaning and housing industry, it is possible to drive up the housing costs, while the loan times can be extended. For a normal person buying house, he will see low interest rate and a relatively large loan. No biggie, he thinks as there's years to make up for this from his perspective. However, this is not the most ideal thing from the government's perspective that is detached from the financial industry. That money that the guy is now paying for the house could have been used to buy something else. Also, the guy is shafted if the interest rate picks up. The bank is not even if several loaners default, as then the taxpayers will be forced to monetize the bank (usually without getting shares because somehow that would just be plain old socialism, right?).
Now, people are paying nearly a million pounds for a house that's 300 years old. And not only is it 300 years old, it's been given a museum status (intended to increase the perceived prestige of the house), preventing any cheap repairs on it. So in the end, London City is the most expensive place in the Europe, but it's the most expensive place because the snobs have said so, and if you can't afford it, then you ain't a snob. Regardless of how rotten or non-functioning your 300 year old mansion is.
Given the 10 % drops in the indexes, surprisingly little has happened as of yet. But let's see till the beginning of next week.
I suppose I'll have to write of the import export balance some other day. It's 3 o'clock in the morning, and the sun rise seems to be taking place. If I don't go to bed now there wont be training tomorrow.