Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

I think you are trying to read too much into this? It was a binary vote, there were two options and neither of them were clearly or honestly presented to the electorate. But that was then and this is now ..... the decision has been made and the majority voted OUT. That is the mandate the vote gave to Parliament ...... and they screwed it up because when you see some of the things being bandied around THEY have no more idea of what leaving entailed than we do today ... three years later.

I totally agree that Parliament has screwed up. You will get no argument from me on that score. But Parliament is all we have got, for better or worse.

So now what?

I do not know. What I do know is that if the answer to that question is 'so now we should leave without a withdrawal deal', then that should be a decision that is also subject to democratic process and should not bypass democratic process just because it was the 'default position' when we triggered article 50. It was subject to democratic process and it failed to pass. SO the question remains 'now what'. I just do not think the answer to that is just ignore democratic process.

If you put it to the people to vote again do you honestly believe the majority have any more idea now as to what it is all about, than they did in 2016? I don’t see that from the comments on here as opinions are still driven by the original referendum result.

To be clear I have not and am not advocating putting the same question to the people again as a way forward. I am simply saying if the proposed way forward is no deal exit and Parliament is by majority opposed to that, then putting that one single question, not the original 2016 ref question, to the people directly would be a way of overriding Parliament majority view to not no deal exit. What I do not accept is that because of the mess we are in we should just ignore democratic process. This is even more true when there are those who are suggesting ignoring democratic process not in the name of 'practicality' but actually because they know that there is not majority support for what they want and thus the only way to get it is to bypass democratic process.

No, that is what a dictatorship is all about! It would remove the constraints imposed to prevent a single person making that decision. That is what I see happening in the US and the President (in our case Prime Minister) is calling the shots and overriding the Senate and chaos ensues.

Thank you for saying that and being the first person here on this board who supports leaving the EU but does not support that.

Were you aware, were any of the people aware that it would require negotiations just to leave and these legal points all had to be negotiated? At the time I thought it was just ‘Article 50’ to make the decision formal and to set a date. I then assumed we would do just what Trump does ...... "We are leaving ..... and goodbye! "

Then the detail falls into place over many months as the regulations are rescinded and we broke away from EU regulation to run our own ship. I never really went into the event in detail ..... and I don’t think many people did .... even those running the show in Parliament! We, as a people voted to leave ...... and we stick by that.

Thank you for saying that too because as someone who voted to remain, I am simply not able to say it, or not without knowing that it would just lead to outrage from many of those who voted to leave, to accusations that I am saying the people are stupid, those who voted leave are stupid and much else besides. It often feels when debating with some (not all , not you, but many others) of those who support leaving, that there is nothing I can say, no matter the merits or otherwise of what I say, that can not be met with 'you are just a remoner seeking to overturn the referendum'. What is more it often feels with such 'types' of leave supporter, that I should have no right to say anything because I voted remain. That I should, because I am in a minority of opinion, just shut up and stop whining, that democracy demands that I just shut up and that to do anything other than just shut up is to seek to thwart the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. Well I think what democracy demands of me, as someone in a minority of opinion, is that I do NOT shut up. That democracy has never worked that way in the UK before and nor should it. That democracy demands and requires and needs those in a minority of opinion to not shut in order for it to work at all.

[erolz66]

I think that is a total misconception!

I think we have been largely talking here at 'cross purposes' and much of the fault for that was my lazy and ill thought out conflating of 'speculation' and 'manipulation'

Any prediction about the future from anyone, that is not about something where the 'mechanics' of it are not well understood is speculative. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow at a certain time from a certain direction is not 'speculation'. However any prediction about the future that is based on mechanics that we do not understand fully, can not predict accurately, is speculative. Now in terms of Brexit we get such speculative predictions from all sorts of places. We get them from politicans, we get them from experts like the bank of england, we get them from individuals and we also get them from the 'markets' in the sense that the prices the market settle at are not and can not just be about the underlying value of the thing being traded at that singular point in time but do and have to include also a speculation as to what the prospects of its value in the future is. All I am saying is that of all the different places that speculation about Brexit comes from, from Politicians, experts , individuals and so on, the markets speculation has a 'purity' about it that none of the other sources of speculative predictions have. That 'purity' that its speculations have is because all those that contribute to the the net speculative price care about is making money. This can not be said of the other sources who speculate. Their motivations are much more complex.

Now if you want to discuss the role in society of markets and argue that they are dominated by parties who goal is nothing that is 'economic productive for the nation', doing things that are not economically productive, like moving large sums around for no other reason that to try and make themselves richer through speculating better than others and topics like this that is fine with me but none of it is related to the point I am trying to make above. For what it is worth I think on topics like these I am probably very close to your own world view than most.

Let me ask you a question? If the value of a company’s shares rise or fall on the markets, does the Company actually gain or lose anything from that? In other words how much of that market valuation goes back to the Company as ‘cash’?

Of course the answer is nothing. Let me , if I may, ask you a question. Let say I have a company making nose hair widgets. I make good ones efficiently and there is strong demand for them and my company is very profitable. Then let's say the government announces it is launching an enquiry in to if nose hair widgets should be allowed to be sold at all or not. Do you think that annoucment about something that might or might not happen in the future could or should affect the value other people place on my company ?

Not strictly true! Unless you have found a Taverna owner or car dealer who will give you a better rate for cash than you can get from the bank, the rate you get is determined by the currency market.

The point is I can not change my pounds to euros at anything less than the market rate , via a market. there is always a 'commission' for using the market at all. These days the very best rate I can get via a market is using something like my revolut card, which will allow me to change money at a cost that is the as that that biggest banks and institutions can do so. This is still not the market mid rate but less than it. If I do a one to one deal with another person, we can agreed to use the market mid rate and both be better off because neither of us has to pay a third party to facilitate our buying and selling. We literally cut out the middle man and both gain from doing so. If I could always myself find a suitable counter party each and every time willing to trade with me directly to the exact amounts I want to trade, then I would have no need for a market, for middle men, at all. I can not do this so I do have a need for middle men, for a market, even though they charge me for that service.

So what other purpose do they serve?

The primary 'point' of a market, of any market, the reason why they came in to existence in the first place, is to facilitate trading. To make it easier for people to trade. To make it easier for those who want to sell something find a counter party that wants to buy it and visa versa. Easier to find each other and easier to agree a price as well. That is their point, their purpose and their 'utility'. At that level removing markets just means making it harder for people who want buy something find someone who wants to sell it.

That markets can be used / abused by, even dominated by, those who do not want to go out and do something economically useful to society in general to make profit for themselves but prefer to do so via unproductive speculation via the market, does not mean for me we should therefore ban markets. It just means that we should agreed to regulate how markets can be used / abuse in such ways better.

[erolz66]

Only the blind who are easily led and controlled only take the traditional media as gospel.

And only those who simply want to find ways to reinforce what they already believe, not challenge such, when such is not mainstream view, ignore it. The internet has changed how diverse a range of sources of information you can find and use but it has not changed how much people want to use such sources selectively to only reinforce what they already believe vs use them to challenge what they currently believe.

[Robin Hood]

Kikapu:

A company going public also retains shares for itself and not all is sold off in the initial offering, so when stock prices rise, so does the equity in the company.

Your concept is flawed ....... I am not sure The Company buys its own shares, in fact I don’t think that is legal? But certainly directors do this and they may even get awarded free shares or cheap options to buy as a bonus. Anyone can buy the shares but they are GIVING not loaning their wealth to the company. That is why I say I don’t think the purchase of its own shares by the company is legal as they would in effect be using shareholders investments to buy their own shares! If you want to get your money back then you sell the shares (Receipts) through brokers and you get what they say they are worth.

The money paid for the shares is already in the Company’s bank account and that is all they will ever see from the floatation of their shares. If the shares leap the day after by 50% there is no more money going into the company account, but a lot of market speculators will laugh all the way to the bank ..... because if that happened they have undervalued the company knowing full well that directly they hit the market the shares will rise in value. If you floated a share issue with a market perceived value of £100m, then it rises 50% the next day the company has been screwed because those same number of shares should have bought an investment of £150m into the company.

So CUI BONO? The Markets ....... i.e. speculators, the same people that undervalued the company in the first place!

House prices which rises does have a direct benefits to the economy, since many homeowners do use the rise in the equity in their homes to use the money to remodel, buy furniture, a car and so on, therefore, the rise in house value is not money that is locked up.

Sorry Kikapu but your argument is again flawed!

They use the equity (Wealth) locked into the property to raise capital through credit/loan to then spend into the economy. If a home owner decides he needs £50k to make improvements, buy furniture or a car, he will toddle of to see his bank manager for a loan (Credit) using the perceived value of his property as collateral. He does not sell off half the spare bedroom!

The bank manager will extend to you CREDIT to something a bit over the £50k to allow for any costs or delays. He allows you to then spend on credit up to £50k that you don’t actually have in your account ........... the strange thing is that neither does the bank have £50K to lend you ....... they do what they say, they extend credit not give you money i.e. they create a £50K debt!.

You start with a credit account of £0 but a credit limit of -£50k. When you spend to your credit limit your credit account will read MINUS 50K ..... you have acquired a debt! You spend up to your credit limit and £50k has gone into the economy .......... £50k that did not even exist until YOU spent it into existence as New Money buying your new car and furniture.

So the wealth remains in the property all you do is use that to secure a line of credit from the bank. You repay it with interest over time and both you and the bank are happy.

[Londonrake]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase

[Robin Hood]

Erolz66:

Any prediction about the future from anyone, that is not about something where the 'mechanics' of it are not well understood is speculative. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow at a certain time from a certain direction is not 'speculation'. However any prediction about the future that is based on mechanics that we do not understand fully, cannot predict accurately, is speculative.

Even when the ‘mechanics’ is understood, there are nearly always external influences that have not been taken into account. But you are right if you have a knowledge of the mechanics the chances are your prediction will be more accurate. Unfortunately with Brexit, it is the first time and there is not enough ‘mechanics’ knowledge to make a reasonable speculation. We quite often rely on bunch of bull shitters because many cannot think beyond the propaganda, the smoke and the mirrors.

......... the markets speculation has a 'purity' about it that none of the other sources of speculative predictions have.

You would find more ‘purity’ in a brothel or a betting shop! Can’t agree with that concept ..... these guys only just fall a hairs breadth short of being bandits, highway robbers and pirates of old! They just wear £20,000 suits, sail in their own multimillion pound yachts and waive a Platinum American Express Card , instead of the Jolly Rodger! They still 'rape and pillage'!

Let me , if I may, ask you a question. Let say I have a company making nose hair widgets. I make good ones efficiently and there is strong demand for them and my company is very profitable. Then let's say the government announces it is launching an enquiry in to if nose hair widgets should be allowed to be sold at all or not. Do you think that announcement about something that might or might not happen in the future could or should affect the value other people place on my company ?

It will affect your share value if you happen to be a PLC, but that would be down to speculators.

It really depends on the strength of the government’s argument! If there have been multiple cases of users of your product, having their brains dragged out through their nostrils and all of them were ok until they used your product ...... if it were me I would start looking for another product to market!

If it was just based on one stupid person who claimed it made their nose bleed and denied it was because they picked their nose although they had long finger nails ...... I would ignore it and sue him for damaging your business.

The point is I cannot change my pounds to Euro’s at anything less than the market rate, via a market.

It is not a market in the sense you are seeing it, it is a market that trades in only one product ‘currency’ and because the major trades go through it, it can determine the exchange rate.

The only currency exchange I do is by virtue of a 4 weekly UK State Pension paid directly to me in Cyprus in Euro’s and I have always found the rate to be better than I would get through traders. So it has little effect on me except at the moment I lose a few more pounds each month.

....... does not mean for me we should therefore ban markets.

I disagree because they have as much use as your appendix or your tonsils do! If it causes trouble then cut-it-out!

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Only the blind who are easily led and controlled only take the traditional media as gospel. There is so much factual information out there but you need to know HOW to find it.

Unless of course it has anything to do with Russia, Putin, Syria, Assad, China, Israel and the Palestinians, Iraq, 9/11, banking, monetary theory etc. and then the MSM is The ONLY source because all the other sources are just a bunch of ‘Conspiracy Theorists’!

You should try taking your own advise!

[Lordo]

can you believe his luck. he has been wating for 50 years to be the world king and he inheritted a premiership at the worst possible time. he had a majrity of 2 with the dup and he is now down to one.

last night was very bad for our brexiteer friends. theother week we had a by-election for labour and with brexit party in the race they managed to increase their majority and last night with tories by-election with 8000 majority they managed to lose it by about 1500 votes. is any tory seat safe in a few weeks when boris is defeated in a no-confidence vote.

may had her hands tied with about 5 majority, boris has just had his feet tied too. he reminds me of the donkey that had its front legs tied so it could not go far. he does look like and sound like a donkey so all appropriate and all that.

what interesting times we live in. can you trust boris to be able to deliver brexit? of course not, you cannot tie his shoolaces yet.

poor boris.

[erolz66]

You would find more ‘purity’ in a brothel or a betting shop!

OK purity was a bad word. How about singularity and transparency as to what motives their 'guess' about how x happening will affect y in the future (y could be share price, the uk economy etc etc). I do not think the markets guess about the future is different from Mark Carney's because traders are clever, more honest, or saints. The point is with the market's guess I do not have to ask or know or care about things like, does he support leave, are they politically left or right, are they a cousin of Dominic Cummings or anything else. I know that whatever their views on all these kinds of things that will not skew their best attempts to guess about the future and how things happening now will affect that future and I know that because I know they place making money for themselves ahead of anything and everything else. The singular motivational force within them when they make best guesses is making money. If that guess leads to indications that leaving is good and they are a remainer, they will not change that best guess as a result.

It is not a market in the sense you are seeing it, it is a market that trades in only one product ‘currency’ and because the major trades go through it, it can determine the exchange rate.

Why is it not a market in the sense that I am seeing it ? Because it only trades in one product ? What is Old Spitalfields Market if not a market for one product (fruit and veg) ? At the end of the day I have a need. I want to change the pounds I have for euros and I want to do so with the minimum of fuss and trouble, when I want to do it and to whatever amount I want to do it. In order to do that I need to find someone who wants to sell euros for pounds and in the amount I want to do in reverse. How do I find such a person, such a counter party without a market ? Let alone how do I agree with him as to the price (rate) ? I see no difference with 'currency' in that regard as I see with 'eggs'. I want eggs, I want to change my pounds for eggs. I need to find someone who has eggs and wants to change them for pounds in the same volumes I do. A market helps me do this. It makes it easier. Eggs or currency, no difference I can see ?

[Kikapu]

Kikapu:

A company going public also retains shares for itself and not all is sold off in the initial offering, so when stock prices rise, so does the equity in the company.

Your concept is flawed ....... I am not sure The Company buys its own shares, in fact I don’t think that is legal? But certainly directors do this and they may even get awarded free shares or cheap options to buy as a bonus. Anyone can buy the shares but they are GIVING not loaning their wealth to the company. That is why I say I don’t think the purchase of its own shares by the company is legal as they would in effect be using shareholders investments to buy their own shares! If you want to get your money back then you sell the shares (Receipts) through brokers and you get what they say they are worth.

The money paid for the shares is already in the Company’s bank account and that is all they will ever see from the floatation of their shares. If the shares leap the day after by 50% there is no more money going into the company account, but a lot of market speculators will laugh all the way to the bank ..... because if that happened they have undervalued the company knowing full well that directly they hit the market the shares will rise in value. If you floated a share issue with a market perceived value of £100m, then it rises 50% the next day the company has been screwed because those same number of shares should have bought an investment of £150m into the company.

So CUI BONO? The Markets ....... i.e. speculators, the same people that undervalued the company in the first place!

House prices which rises does have a direct benefits to the economy, since many homeowners do use the rise in the equity in their homes to use the money to remodel, buy furniture, a car and so on, therefore, the rise in house value is not money that is locked up.

Sorry Kikapu but your argument is again flawed!

They use the equity (Wealth) locked into the property to raise capital through credit/loan to then spend into the economy. If a home owner decides he needs £50k to make improvements, buy furniture or a car, he will toddle of to see his bank manager for a loan (Credit) using the perceived value of his property as collateral. He does not sell off half the spare bedroom!

The bank manager will extend to you CREDIT to something a bit over the £50k to allow for any costs or delays. He allows you to then spend on credit up to £50k that you don’t actually have in your account ........... the strange thing is that neither does the bank have £50K to lend you ....... they do what they say, they extend credit not give you money i.e. they create a £50K debt!.

You start with a credit account of £0 but a credit limit of -£50k. When you spend to your credit limit your credit account will read MINUS 50K ..... you have acquired a debt! You spend up to your credit limit and £50k has gone into the economy .......... £50k that did not even exist until YOU spent it into existence as New Money buying your new car and furniture.

So the wealth remains in the property all you do is use that to secure a line of credit from the bank. You repay it with interest over time and both you and the bank are happy.

Nice piece of “hair splitting”, RH.

The point is, if the rising value of one’s house does not happen, hence the increase equity, the homeowner won’t be able to exchange that increased equity to credit/money to buy what he wants, which makes a contribution to the economy. The only way he is not going to do the above, if in fact his mortgage is “under water”, which would adds zero money to the economy. More money = more credit = more spending = vibrant economy.