Jtc Share Discussion Threads

[pendragon2] 17/12/2018 11:15

There is not much point dwelling on past errors, but one positive of a hard Brexit in March would make it immediately possible to begin FTA negotiations with other parts of the world, USA, Japan (who suggested UK should join trans pacific partnership), rather than wait until a deal is done with rump EU. I do not understand why it seems to have been assumed that the EU relationship should have priority before engaging in other negotiations.

Without the UK, the EU is a much weakened beast and the UK should be giving prominance to other more important markets, while adopting a 'friendly collaborative' approach to the EU and the future trading arrangement.

I don't understand why no-one is talking about the huge benefits of being away from the ultra-orthodox Eurozone economic micromanagement and the various 'programmes' and 'initiatives' that rarely seem to have benefitted the UK very much at all.

The difference between a likely trade agreement and WTO rules are not very substantial, if you work through the effects in relation to import/export prices, which are a small proportion of prices to customers, once advertising and marketing, mark-ups on wholesale & retail, then VAT.

Start with something that costs you ten quid and work backwards, 2pound VAT leaves 8, 50% retail, leaves 4, 15% wholesale distribution leaves 2,50, 50pence ads and marketing leaves 2 quid import price. The very highest wto tariffs are 30%, so 60p to the UK treasury as customs duty on the most highly rated goods.

The same applies to exports, except the 60p is paid for by the EU customer and flows into the importer's country coffers.

Many wto tariffs are less than 5%.

Its just a bit of tax, not the end of the world.

If the EU want to clog up their ports with paperwork then that is their own version of self harm, imho.

[finkwot] 17/12/2018 10:44

Brexit hasn't happened yet, so all we'll see is the loss of confidence and inability to renew or tender for contracts because of uncertainty, because, contrary to what that idiot MT was shouting, no-one knew what Brexit meant at the time of the referendum. Nor do they now.

[brucie5] 17/12/2018 10:44

"Or do some people think Brexit - actually a bungled implementation of Brexit - hit them first!?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I have no opinion on ASC, except for the trite but true observation that what goes up, is bound to come down again, and what goes up extremely far and fast, may descend in a similar fashion...the last line caught my attention. As the economy takes a double hit compounded by the effects of Brexit, I suspect we will hear more and more Brexiteers play this one as their preferred Get of Jail Free Card.

'Bungled Brexit' 'Not the Brexit we wanted' etc. As if there was any other kind available, in the real world.

[aleman] 17/12/2018 10:36

ASC warns - the UK was their strongest market and yet some are still blaming it on Brexit. I'd say negative GDP growth in Japan, Italy and Germany and falling housing markets in Australia and Canada took their toll on it international business. The global slowdown is hurting UK business - or do some people think Brexit - actually a bungled implementation of Brexit - hit them first!?

UK +19%
EU +18%
US +13%
Rest of World -3%

[brucie5] 17/12/2018 09:08

BahamasOil
17 Dec '18 - 08:50 - 70602 of 70605
0 0 2
Brucie5

I am sorry that you didn't understand the question posed in the referendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahama,

The neat irony of your question belies its deeper vapidity: Where in any voter's mind was it possible that Michael Gove and Liam Fox could now find themselves behind Teresa May, pushing for a Brexit that is completely rejected by JRM and Boris, as actually not a Brexit, but a betrayal, leaving us a 'vassal state'?

Please tell me, assuming you know: which of these two warring sides did the 52% vote for, and what is your evidence?

[zho] 17/12/2018 08:53

Hi 7Kiwi,

>>Zho. Quite true. But it doesn't alter the facts.>>

Sure - but neither does it make them relevant.

[zho] 17/12/2018 08:51

>>Close the loopholes that enable Google/Amazon and co to evade UK tax>>

One of many good points made by Pendragon.

The tax bases of many countries are shrinking as individuals and companies avoid taxes, legally or otherwise. This is a worry to me, on pragmatic rather than ideological grounds, because it tends to increase the inequality which I see as a driver of discontent.

One of the reasons I was persuaded – just about – to vote to stay in Europe was that Europe is big enough to act in this kind of area, whereas I don't think that the UK alone is.

It's hardly a positive that Juncker is President of the EU Commission - as Prime Minister he encouraged Amazon to channel sales through Luxembourg – enriching Luxembourg but denying tax revenues to his neighbours.

On the other hand I was encouraged by Margrethe Vestager 's successful action against Apple, fined $15 billion for channelling their IP revenues through Dublin, paying just 0.005% tax.

[alphorn] 17/12/2018 08:51

7K - are you suggesting in today's world that a country of 60/70m people can survive on being 'mostly domestic'? That is laughable.

[bahamasoil] 17/12/2018 08:50

Brucie5

I am sorry that you didn't understand the question posed in the referendum.

[7kiwi] 17/12/2018 08:48

Zho. Quite true. But it doesn't alter the facts.

Most of the economy is domestic. And less than half of exports are to the EU.

If we leave with no deal, there will undoubtedly be some disruption. I believe this will be manageable, and will open the way for better trade terms with the parts of the rest of the world that are growing.

I voted to Leave in the full knowledge that exiting the EU would be complex and would lead to some short term issues. But I didn't believe the exaggerated Project Fear claims before the referendum, and I still don't.

[brucie5] 17/12/2018 08:45

Factual but misleading: yes. A fatal combination.

As in, 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'. And I readily concede that both sides have felt able to spin them to advantage, which is very self-defeating, since now we seem to be without any central, indisputable source of authority. Which is how the Right manages to hook people into conspiracy theories... and Brexit.

I never forget Trump's reaction to seeing how many fewer people there were at his inauguration than Obama's and claiming it was the other way round. I think it was Kelyanne Conway, his enabler, said The President had access to 'alternate facts'. It was a curiously dark and comedic moment, which has become progressively extended with every lie that comes out of that buffoon's mouth. And let we forget, Farage, is his great admirer.

[zho] 17/12/2018 08:34

>>And Zho, well done for picking up Kiwi on his 'facts'.>>

Well, it was factual, but misleading. I had a small VAT-registered business and I sold modestly to Europe, but the idea that I would have been counted alongside giant businesses is laughable.

[brucie5] 17/12/2018 08:18

Bluster - yes. I first came onto this board to contest the views of a Certain Angry White Man of Advanced Years as shown on youtube, and by the sounds of, he hasn't become any less angry, especially if he's now taken to shouting.

Main thing is, people of this country who want a second vote based on information, not disinformation, should not now feel intimidated by what are essentially fascistic threats from the right about All Hell Breaking Loose. This is how all bullies behave.


Have faith in democracy, not MT's populist, self-serving version of it.

[blusteradjuster] 17/12/2018 08:14

ASOS (ASC) warns.

The damage that our political situation is doing to retail, consumer confidence and the economy is starting to show through.

Hat tip to Rees-Mogg and Redwood for getting their investment funds out of the U.K.

Good call chaps.

[blusteradjuster] 17/12/2018 08:12

Zho, yes clearly a case of lies, damned lies and statistics.

Kiwi likes dodgy statistics - they’re his tool of choice on the global warming thread.

[zho] 17/12/2018 08:04

>>90-odd percent of UK businesses don't export to the EU>>

I've see this claim before and it looks like a misuse of statistics. The businesses included in the figures are those paying VAT and so every VAT-registered business, however small, counts the same as a Glaxo or a Diageo. But for every Glaxo there are tens of thousands of VAT-registered plumbers, for every Diageo there are tens of thousands of VAT-registered electricians.

[nametrade] 17/12/2018 08:02

Mattjos, good post I agree with b!

It's a sad fact that not only the government but the majority of the spectrum of parliament do not deserve their positions and are quite frankly a waste of tax payers money!
This whole brexit debacle has been dealt with in a disgraceful manner.
MPs wasting valuable time still talking of second referendums, general elections when they should have concerned themselves with the issues.... not trying to kick the can down the road a bit longer as seems to happen all too much today.
In my mind the PM should have gone to Brussels after the referendum and said...don't shoot the messenger the people have voted to come out of the EU, so this is what's going to happen. Will you work with us and get a good deal between us.
If they then were aggressive she should have said ok we will stop our payments to the EU tomorrow....this should consentrate the minds of Europe to work together and get a symbiotic deal. Money is what it comes down too...
The PMs deal is disgraceful, Treason May is very apt.

[grannyboy] 17/12/2018 07:51

It's still plainly obvious the 'REMOANERS' are beligerently in denial, for fools like blustetadjuster to disagree with a post(MT 70587) filled with the truth of what was unambiguously stated and restated prior to the referendum, and which shamelessly for the establishment has continued ever since, right up until the present time.

And the only response you get from these traitors to democracy, is condescension, by their refusal to accept that the ordinary man and woman in the street didn't know what they were voting for, and are just thick, and stupid, and ripe to be used for 'cannon fodder'....But still useful to use for a second 'people's vote'.....EHHH!!!!!!

[blusteradjuster] 17/12/2018 07:30

These alt-righters do like their fossil fuels.

I suppose it’s a case of “thanks for the funding”.

[blusteradjuster] 17/12/2018 07:17

Mount Teide’s latest rant reads like an incendiary, reactionary rallying call for Leaver cannon-fodder.

The shouty capitals and the casting of “RemainersR21; as the despised enemy is the kind of armchair general language that Jacob “get your investment money out of the U.K.” Rees-Mogg or John “get your investment money out of the U.K.” Redwood might come out with.

Thing is, there’s no jeopardy for the likes of MT, Tree-Frog and Spock.

They’ll send the council-estate leavers over the top to take the (economic) bullets for them..



Mount Teide17 Dec '18 - 06:27 - 70587 of 70588
0 2 0
What IS CERTAIN with regard to the EU Referendum is that voters knew exactly what they were voting for BECAUSE EVERY POLITICAL PARTY(WITH THE EXCEPTION OF UKIP) TOLD THEM BEFOREHAND WHAT A VOTE TO LEAVE WOULD MEAN.

The electorate voted in a referendum in which they were told by REMAINERS that economic armageddon would be around the corner if they voted to leave and by wheeled out CEO's of multi nationals that they would lose their jobs; but the electorate after careful consideration voted to leave despite all that because they placed more importance on sovereignty, democratic accountability and the possibility of kick starting Britain again - a entirely valid and noble aim for which the vindictive political class and liberal establishment post the referendum are treating them like mugs again by telling them the only thing they should be interested in is your wallet/purse and we're going to make sure that both suffers.

At the time of the EU referendum, the REMAIN campaigners which was all the main political parties and their MP's together with the Civil Service and liberal left establishment - all said a VOTE to LEAVE would have a DIRE IMMEDIATE economic impact - people voted to LEAVE despite that now completely discredited 'warning'.

So the one thing the British people can be certain of with respect to the Referendum Vote is that, the REMAINERS DESPERATE: "its the economy stupid" cliche WAS NOT IGNORED by the ELECTORATE - THEY WERE FULLY EXPECTING TO IMMEDIATELY BE WORSE OFF BY VOTING TO LEAVE THE EU, BECAUSE THE LIARS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE RESULT OF A DEMOCRATIC VOTE UNLESS IT AGREES WITH THEIR POINT OF VIEW, TOLD THEM THEY WOULD BE AS A RESULT OF THE VINDICTIVE ACTION OF THE REMAINER POLITICAL CLASS THREATENING TO UNLEASH A HELLISH £30bn EMERGENCY PUNISHMENT BUDGET ON THEM!

Game, set and Brexit!

IF YOU VALUE YOUR HEALTH, WEALTH and lIBERTY IGNORE THESE anti DEMOCRATIC, shameless LIARS AT YOUR PERIL.

[blusteradjuster] 17/12/2018 06:49

MT reads more deranged with every post.

Actually, perhaps he’s bricking it about the People’s Vote - which would come out in favour of Remain if that were an option.

[mount teide] 17/12/2018 06:27

What IS CERTAIN with regard to the EU Referendum is that voters knew exactly what they were voting for BECAUSE EVERY POLITICAL PARTY(WITH THE EXCEPTION OF UKIP) TOLD THEM BEFOREHAND WHAT A VOTE TO LEAVE WOULD MEAN.

The electorate voted in a referendum in which they were told by REMAINERS that economic armageddon would be around the corner if they voted to leave and by wheeled out CEO's of multi nationals that they would lose their jobs; but the electorate after careful consideration voted to leave despite all that because they placed more importance on sovereignty, democratic accountability and the possibility of kick starting Britain again - a entirely valid and noble aim for which the vindictive political class and liberal establishment post the referendum are treating them like mugs again by telling them the only thing they should be interested in is your wallet/purse and we're going to make sure that both suffers.

At the time of the EU referendum, the REMAIN campaigners which was all the main political parties and their MP's together with the Civil Service and liberal left establishment - all said a VOTE to LEAVE would have a DIRE IMMEDIATE economic impact - people voted to LEAVE despite that now completely discredited 'warning'.

So the one thing the British people can be certain of with respect to the Referendum Vote is that, the REMAINERS DESPERATE: "its the economy stupid" cliche WAS NOT IGNORED by the ELECTORATE - THEY WERE FULLY EXPECTING TO IMMEDIATELY BE WORSE OFF BY VOTING TO LEAVE THE EU, BECAUSE THE LIARS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE RESULT OF A DEMOCRATIC VOTE UNLESS IT AGREES WITH THEIR POINT OF VIEW, TOLD THEM THEY WOULD BE AS A RESULT OF THE VINDICTIVE ACTION OF THE REMAINER POLITICAL CLASS THREATENING TO UNLEASH A HELLISH £30bn EMERGENCY PUNISHMENT BUDGET ON THEM!

Game, set and Brexit!

IF YOU VALUE YOUR HEALTH, WEALTH and lIBERTY IGNORE THESE anti DEMOCRATIC, shameless LIARS AT YOUR PERIL.

[zangdook] 17/12/2018 00:36

JT, or anyone

I want to get myself a copy of Security Analysis but I'm confused about the editions. I've seen people recommending the first edition (1934) and the second edition (1940), and I've seen a lot of criticism of the latest, sixth edition because it has bits of the original missed out and a lot of "commentary" by other people. I've seen no recommendations for the third edition (1951) which is still by Graham and Dodd, or the fourth (1962) by Graham, Dodd and Cottle, nor for the fifth (1988) updated by Cottle and others.

I completely understand the objection to the sixth. I've seen an edition of The Intelligent Investor similarly messed about with, but if Graham updated S.A. for the third, why are people recommending the first and second? And while I never heard of Cottle, presumably Graham had a reason to bring him in for the fourth edition.

It seems the first, second and third editions have been reprinted, but not the fourth or fifth, so the choice boils down to 1,2,3 or 6, or look for something second-hand if I want 4 or 5.

Overall, which should I get? And what is the difference? The Intelligent Investor seems to have been largely rewritten for each edition.