Wow, Britain votes to leave EU...

[starchief]

From what I have seen and heard, one of the biggest drivers of the vote to leave was the mass immigration coming into England that was allowed by the EU. Hmmm... the people decided they wanted more control of who comes into their own country. Imagine that.

Everybody is good with immigration until the immigrants start to move in next door (and they see how they act and live) or start competing with them for their jobs (immigrants have advanced way past just picking crops these days) and dragging their wages down.

The Paddock is not a microcosm of US society. Paddock posters are generally college-educated folks with well-paying jobs who believe they are immune from the effects of the swarms coming in.

The average Joe is not in this privileged position.

 

[Bill Derington]

This is true. Restricting the flow of people and trade isn't a good thing for Britain economically. Moreover the uncertainty makes Britain less attractive for investment. So less flow of people, trade and money. Could they eventually reemerge even better? Possible. Sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward. But let's be clear...this is a step back for UK economically. Also why global markets reacted the way they did. They may or may not emerge better in the long run, but they do have an uphill climb.

The positives are what everyone here has already hashed out, in terms of potentially better control of borders, better security, culture preservation, and in general just more control over affairs in their own country.

Alot of what drove the market yestrday is emotion and pack mentality hysteria.

The market will adapt, it's what it does when the people decide things need to change.

 

[ukdesi]

Alot of what drove the market yestrday is emotion and pack mentality hysteria.

The market will adapt, it's what it does when the people decide things need to change.

You can argue that it was an overreaction sure, but the reason markets reacted bearishly at all is because of the negative impact economically. I mean hell, why not move up bullishly on the same news? Maybe it went too far south yesterday (overreaction), but markets also tend to price in everything instantly.

 

[.S&C.]

I guarantee people like Moe one thing.

If these immigrants were stealing YOUR job, effecting YOUR neighborhood, effecting YOUR families future, you'd be the first to stop it. White college educated people (myself included) are (for the most part) safe. People like Moe, I'm sure, are in the same situation.

I'll tell you what I find more racist (in this Country)than a guy like trump. The white, educated, liberal type person that is willing to send black unemployment down EVEN FURTHER to gain their perceived victory in a European ideological war. Those are the real racist toward the African American cause.

When Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc (all white btw) have THEIR livelihoods at stake, their neiborhoods and culture at stake, and their security (live outside the gate) at odds, then I will listen to the treason lobby. Until you practice what you preach, shut the F*** up.

This goes for firearms too. Until white elite liberal politicians disarm their security, the NRA shouldn't budge on so much as an ID law on firearms. Give them nothing. Until Obama disarms his daughters seccurity detail, give him nothing. And make it clear.

Britain did the right thing here. Huge loss for the social anarchist of Europe and of the west.

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

The telling

I guarantee people like Moe one thing.

If these immigrants were stealing YOUR job, effecting YOUR neighborhood, effecting YOUR families future, you'd be the first to stop it. White college educated people (myself included) are (for the most part) safe.

Falsity false false false. The tech industry is pushing for unlimited H1B. And by the way, and dickhead from India basically qualifies now for H1B. And I know, I work with tons of them.

And by the way, I love working with the Indians. They're sharp, cool and easy to get along with. But they're hurting our native college grads, and if we allowed unlimited immigration it would kill our domestic workers.

 

[starchief]

I guarantee people like Moe one thing.

If these immigrants were stealing YOUR job, effecting YOUR neighborhood, effecting YOUR families future, you'd be the first to stop it. White college educated people (myself included) are (for the most part) safe. People like Moe, I'm sure, are in the same situation.

I'll tell you what I find more racist (in this Country)than a guy like trump. The white, educated, liberal type person that is willing to send black unemployment down EVEN FURTHER to gain their perceived victory in a European ideological war. Those are the real racist toward the African American cause.

When Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc (all white btw) have THEIR livelihoods at steak, their neiborhoods and culture at stake, and their security (live outside the gate) at odds, then I will listen to the treason lobby. Until you practice what you preach, shut the F*** up.

This goes for firearms too. Until white elite liberal politicians disarm their security, the NRA shouldn't budge on so much as an ID law on firearms. Give them nothing. Until Obama disarms his daughters seccurity detail, give him nothing. And make it clear.

Britain did the right thing here. Huge loss for the social anarchist of Europe and the west.

Bill and Hillary were able to work themselves out of poverty after they got out of the White House. Gotta admire that. Bootstraps.

 

[starchief]

The telling


Falsity false false false. The tech industry is pushing for unlimited H1B. And by the way, and dickhead from India basically qualifies now for H1B. And I know, I work with tons of them.

And by the way, I love working with the Indians. They're sharp, cool and easy to get along with. But they're hurting our native college grads, and if we allowed unlimited immigration it would kill our domestic workers.

This is true. They are however generally the most arrogant, know-it-all, non-integrating (except at work) eggheads you'll ever meet (the tech guys come from the privileged caste in India) and seldom can speak understandable English.

 

[Bill Derington]

You can argue that it was an overreaction sure, but the reason markets reacted bearishly at all is because of the negative impact economically. I mean hell, why not move up bullishly on the same news? Maybe it went too far south yesterday (overreaction), but markets also tend to price in everything instantly.

Because it was an immediate change in the way business will have to be done.

What people need to realize is whats good for a company, isn't necessarily good for the people. It's good for a company to move to a third world country with cheap labor and send the product back to the country it just left. But it's bad for the people who now have no job, or much less income. Thats why the powers that be, left and right want a world with no borders, they are bought and paid for by these corporations. Look at our society now, it's falling to shamble's, but we can do something about it just like the British.

Are you willing to put a price tag on liberty and freedom? I'm not

 

[ukdesi]

Because it was an immediate change in the way business will have to be done.

What people need to realize is whats good for a company, isn't necessarily good for the people. It's good for a company to move to a third world country with cheap labor and send the product back to the country it just left. But it's bad for the people who now have no job, or much less income. Thats why the powers that be, left and right want a world with no borders, they are bought and paid for by these corporations. Look at our society now, it's falling to shamble's, but we can do something about it just like the British.

Are you willing to put a price tag on liberty and freedom? I'm not

By that logic, any "change" in the market would constitute a bearish reaction, which obviously isn't true. It's because its a change with a perceived negative impact on the global economy. That's it.

Not sure of the relevancy of you analogy, but the counter argument is if the company doesn't stay competitive, they lose business, shrink rather than expand, stock price falls, and layoffs occur and people lose jobs.

 

[Bill Derington]

By that logic, any "change" in the market would constitute a bearish reaction, which obviously isn't true. It's because its a change with a perceived negative impact on the global economy. That's it.

Not sure of the relevancy of you analogy, but the counter argument is if the company doesn't stay competitive, they lose business, shrink rather than expand, stock price falls, and layoffs occur and people lose jobs.

It's not a negative change, its a change in the way they will have to do business. It's only negative to you because the market went south. Good for business does not equate as good for the people.

Competitive, competitive with whom? Other companies that are also allowed to leave here? Companies from other countries that are allowed free trade into our market?

The problem is people are losing jobs, communities are dying,people are suffering all the while profits have soared. We've sold ourselves out for cheap labor and high profits, all in the name of the " global economy".

The market is going to correct itself, the people will force it. What goods the stock market to a person that no longer has 401K? More and more have no hope of retirement, work till they die or get to where they can't work any longer. How would you like to have that to look forward too?

 

[ukdesi]

It's not a negative change, its a change in the way they will have to do business. It's only negative to you because the market went south. Good for business does not equate as good for the people.

Competitive, competitive with whom? Other companies that are also allowed to leave here? Companies from other countries that are allowed free trade into our market?

The problem is people are losing jobs, communities are dying,people are suffering all the while profits have soared. We've sold ourselves out for cheap labor and high profits, all in the name of the " global economy".

The market is going to correct itself, the people will force it. What goods the stock market to a person that no longer has 401K? More and more have no hope of retirement, work till they die or get to where they can't work any longer. How would you like to have that to look forward too?

Market participants viewed it as negative economically. That much was apparent.

You might view the change positively, and for me personally it's actually positive financially because I've been short the pound for quite some time. Sure the market may correct over time, but my point is simply that market participants viewed the events yesterday negatively for the global economy. I'm not arguing about the long run health of global markets.

Business is global these days. So American companies need to stay competitive with every other company that competes in their space globally. Ultimately this is driven by the consumer, who wants the highest quality product/service at the best price available. If American companies choose not to be competitive, people will lose jobs anyway.

 

[Bill Derington]

Market participants viewed it as negative economically. That much was apparent.

You might view the change positively, and for me personally it's actually positive financially because I've been short the pound for quite some time. Sure the market may correct over time, but my point is simply that market participants viewed the events yesterday negatively for the global economy. I'm not arguing about the long run health of global markets.

Business is global these days. So American companies need to stay competitive with every other company that competes in their space globally. Ultimately this is driven by the consumer, who wants the highest quality product/service at the best price available. If American companies choose not to be competitive, people will lose jobs anyway.

You're saying it costs too much to pay American workers, well of course it is compared to the third world. Tariffs were put in place to protect Americans, to prevent what is happening all in the name of profit.

The markets didn't see it as good news, because they know business is about to change. They have taken advantage of the third world, and the markets citizens. Not only that, it's also empowered China, who is aggressively ramping up it's military, yay profit!

People are getting fed up with it, even if Trump loses change is coming. The longer we stall, the worse it's going to hurt financially.

 

[.S&C.]

The telling


Falsity false false false. The tech industry is pushing for unlimited H1B. And by the way, and dickhead from India basically qualifies now for H1B. And I know, I work with tons of them.

And by the way, I love working with the Indians. They're sharp, cool and easy to get along with. But they're hurting our native college grads, and if we allowed unlimited immigration it would kill our domestic workers.

I agree. I'm talking about uneducated and most unskilled working positions. It will directly effect the minority communities, not educated white elites and pseudo intellectuals like moe.

 

[ukdesi]

You're saying it costs too much to pay American workers, well of course it is compared to the third world. Tariffs were put in place to protect Americans, to prevent what is happening all in the name of profit.

The markets didn't see it as good news, because they know business is about to change. They have taken advantage of the third world, and the markets citizens. Not only that, it's also empowered China, who is aggressively ramping up it's military, yay profit!

People are getting fed up with it, even if Trump loses change is coming. The longer we stall, the worse it's going to hurt financially.

LOL....the market sees it as bad news because it restricts the flow of money, people and goods. Not because it is "change" for change's sake.

I'm not saying it costs too much to pay Americans. I am saying business is global, and businesses have to stay competitive. Competitive does not just mean "lower costs". I work for a manufacturing company. My company is competitive not because we are the lowest cost producer, but because we produce high quality specialized products that have demand globally and that are not easily reproduced by our competition. That's our edge.

Even in a commodity market, American companies can compete by becoming more efficient and providing better service. Improve the return on net assets.

In my view, America needs more creativity, innovation and entrepreneurs. This is what will grow the economy and create jobs. Facebook is an example of American genius. Now it is a 500 billion dollar company that has created many jobs for Americans.

American business managers have to grow their businesses by maintaining competitive edges in the marketplace. And edge does not mean "lowest cost" in many cases.

American businesses that are not competitive though will endure layoffs. A recent example of this is DuPont, which is undergoing massive change and layoffs. DuPont didn't fail because of the higher cost of American labor though...it failed because it spent massive amounts on R&D without much return in the way of new innovative products. It also failed because its large corporate bureaucracy rendered it too slow to react to changes in the market place and enact changes that would allow it to be more efficient.

 

[starchief]

Because it was an immediate change in the way business will have to be done.

What people need to realize is whats good for a company, isn't necessarily good for the people. It's good for a company to move to a third world country with cheap labor and send the product back to the country it just left. But it's bad for the people who now have no job, or much less income. Thats why the powers that be, left and right want a world with no borders, they are bought and paid for by these corporations. Look at our society now, it's falling to shamble's, but we can do something about it just like the British.

Are you willing to put a price tag on liberty and freedom? I'm not

For any of us who were adults back when this transition was occurring (and who paid attention to the news and politics) could easily see where it would eventually lead. People were not paying attention.

On the other hand, we get plenty of cheap crap from China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh et al. They took good American products (Black and Decker for example) and turned them into throwaway crap.

 

[Bill Derington]

LOL....the market sees it as bad news because it restricts the flow of money, people and goods. Not because it is "change" for change's sake.

I'm not saying it costs too much to pay Americans. I am saying business is global, and businesses have to stay competitive. Competitive does not just mean "lower costs". I work for a manufacturing company. My company is competitive not because we are the lowest cost producer, but because we produce high quality specialized products that have demand globally and that are not easily reproduced by our competition. That's our edge.

Even in a commodity market, American companies can compete by becoming more efficient and providing better service. Improve the return on net assets.

In my view, America needs more creativity, innovation and entrepreneurs. This is what will grow the economy and create jobs. Facebook is an example of American genius. Now it is a 500 billion dollar company that has created many jobs for Americans.

American business managers have to grow their businesses by maintaining competitive edges in the marketplace. And edge does not mean "lowest cost" in many cases.

American businesses that are not competitive though will endure layoffs. A recent example of this is DuPont, which is undergoing massive change and layoffs. DuPont didn't fail because of the higher cost of American labor though...it failed because it spent massive amounts on R&D without much return in the way of new innovative products. It also failed because its large corporate bureaucracy rendered it too slow to react to changes in the market place and enact changes that would allow it to be more efficient.

I didn't say it was change for change's sake, I said it was going to change the way they do business from here on.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not saying every company in the US MUST be propped up, but our Govt has not acted in the best interests of citizens, and free trade isn't either.

Look around man, innovation and technology didn't cause most of these factories and plants to shutdown. Cheap labor in the third world did.

What happened in the stock market yesterday was pure emotion, and reaction to the unknown.

 

[Violent Cuts]

I mean, the UK isn't barred from negotiating free trade and other agreements with other countries.

 

[ukdesi]

I didn't say it was change for change's sake, I said it was going to change the way they do business from here on.

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not saying every company in the US MUST be propped up, but our Govt has not acted in the best interests of citizens, and free trade isn't either.

Look around man, innovation and technology didn't cause most of these factories and plants to shutdown. Cheap labor in the third world did.

What happened in the stock market yesterday was pure emotion, and reaction to the unknown.

I think free trade is good for the USA. That's free market economics and free market enterprise that our country was founded on. Here is an article from a right wing think tank on the value of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

I think blaming poor business results on cost is a cop out. An excuse. You have to fight and conquer obstacles to survive. If you get beat, get out. Competition promotes innovation, makes our businesses better and results in more profitable companies which grow our economy and create jobs.

 

[ukdesi]

I mean, the UK isn't barred from negotiating free trade and other agreements with other countries.

Well let's see if they can do that. Good luck with the rest of Europe.....

 

[MychalG]

I got $2600 bucks where should I stick the money?

In my bank account, I will watch over it for you..

 

[.S&C.]

Well let's see if they can do that. Good luck with the rest of Europe.....

Europe will do what's best for Europe, and Britain will do what's best for Britain. This will shake out just fine in the end. When Britain improves because of the split, the OWO warriors will be set back 100 years.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Voters against the move calling for a redo in voting.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

This is true. Restricting the flow of people and trade isn't a good thing for Britain economically. Moreover the uncertainty makes Britain less attractive for investment. So less flow of people, trade and money. Could they eventually reemerge even better? Possible. Sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward. But let's be clear...this is a step back for UK economically. Also why global markets reacted the way they did. They may or may not emerge better in the long run, but they do have an uphill climb.

The positives are what everyone here has already hashed out, in terms of potentially better control of borders, better security, culture preservation, and in general just more control over affairs in their own country.

This is just my opinion, but almost nothing is as important as having control over the affairs of your country. I can't imagine joining any kind of alliance where you give up control of your currency, borders, etc. The whole concept is beyond stupid. Personally, I can't understand any mentality that would want to relinquish that kind of control to folks outside of your political control.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You can argue that it was an overreaction sure, but the reason markets reacted bearishly at all is because of the negative impact economically. I mean hell, why not move up bullishly on the same news? Maybe it went too far south yesterday (overreaction), but markets also tend to price in everything instantly.

I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of markets at all. The markets aren't reacting negatively because of negative economical impact, they are reacting negatively because of uncertainty. The decision creates uncertainty, and therefore, more investment risk. The reaction is to pull back until things progress to the point where there is more certainty with the economic situation.

 

[ukdesi]

This is just my opinion, but almost nothing is as important as having control over the affairs of your country. I can't imagine joining any kind of alliance where you give up control of your currency, borders, etc. The whole concept is beyond stupid. Personally, I can't understand any mentality that would want to relinquish that kind of control to folks outside of your political control.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not sure why the EU couldn't have just been geared to economics rather than both economics and politics.

 

[JumperJack]

Voters against the move calling for a redo in voting.

Considering the ideologies that lost the vote, this is not surprising. Maybe they'll have a sit-in to show their displeasure at not getting their way.

 

[ukdesi]

I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of markets at all. The markets aren't reacting negatively because of negative economical impact, they are reacting negatively because of uncertainty. The decision creates uncertainty, and therefore, more investment risk. The reaction is to pull back until things progress to the point where there is more certainty with the economic situation.

The move is viewed negative economically due to restricted flow of trade, people and money. The uncertainty is a result of the negative outlook of the move.

Your statement is akin to saying "The US stock market crashed today because of concerns about the housing market. However, there is zero negative sentiment surrounding the crash of the housing market. Most investors are actually neutral towards it, but sold off due to the uncertainty instead."

 

[Bill Derington]

I think free trade is good for the USA. That's free market economics and free market enterprise that our country was founded on. Here is an article from a right wing think tank on the value of free trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

I think blaming poor business results on cost is a cop out. An excuse. You have to fight and conquer obstacles to survive. If you get beat, get out. Competition promotes innovation, makes our businesses better and results in more profitable companies which grow our economy and create jobs.

A cop out? Our countries free trade philosophy by the founders was between States, not foreign countries. There's a difference between free trade between Kentucky and California, Kentucky and Mexico.

I'm not blaming poor results on competition , I'm blaming a company closing in Mayfield and opening a replacement plant in Mexico, then sending the product right back to the US. I understand that's good for business, and good for profit, but it's not good for our citizens long term.

I'm not mad at the executives that make those decisions, I understand why they do. I'm upset at our politicians for passing the laws and acts that make it possible.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

The move is viewed negative economically due to restricted flow of trade, people and money. The uncertainty is a result of the negative outlook of the move.

Your statement is akin to saying "The US stock market crashed today because of concerns about the housing market. However, there is zero negative sentiment surrounding the crash of the housing market. Most investors are actually neutral towards it, but sold off due to the uncertainty instead."

I'm not saying you are completely off base, but there is no way to say that the long term impact results in restricted trade, or flow of money. There may be a more restricted flow of people into the UK, but that doesn't necessarily mean a poorer economic outlook.

 

[Bill Derington]

The move is viewed negative economically due to restricted flow of trade, people and money. The uncertainty is a result of the negative outlook of the move.

Your statement is akin to saying "The US stock market crashed today because of concerns about the housing market. However, there is zero negative sentiment surrounding the crash of the housing market. Most investors are actually neutral towards it, but sold off due to the uncertainty instead."

No it's not Desi, cat was right. There is no way of knowing how this will shake out. Hell they aren't leaving the EU for 2 years so why that effect anything right now.
The unknown and knee jerk reaction is what happened, people went to gold until it shakes out and a picture forms.

If Trump is elected it'll do the same thing the day after the election. You and I both know that and it's 4 months from election. People over react to changing situations.

 

[ukdesi]

I'm not saying you are completely off base, but there is no way to say that the long term impact results in restricted trade, or flow of money. There may be a more restricted flow of people into the UK, but that doesn't necessarily mean a poorer economic outlook.

I think it's more of a negative short-term outlook.

 

[ukdesi]

No it's not Desi, cat was right. There is no way of knowing how this will shake out. Hell they aren't leaving the EU for 2 years so why that effect anything right now.
The unknown and knee jerk reaction is what happened, people went to gold until it shakes out and a picture forms.

If Trump is elected it'll do the same thing the day after the election. You and I both know that and it's 4 months from election. People over react to changing situations.

I'll make a bet that if Trump is elected...our markets won't end in a 500 point drop. The depth and breadth of the drop point to the negative sentiment embedded in the move.

 

[Bill Derington]

I'll make a bet that if Trump is elected...our markets won't end in a 500 point drop. The depth and breadth of the drop point to the negative sentiment embedded in the move.

You're probably right about not being 500.

A lot of it was surprise as well, most didn't think it would pass. The polls at the end all showed remain winning, it was unexpected.

 

[JohnBlue]

Without me trying to translate political agenda's in the thread, what does this mean for England. I mean what is going to change and what would be the loss for them by leaving this.

 

[AustinTXCat]

The Paddock never disappoints.

True story.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Without me trying to translate political agenda's in the thread, what does this mean for England. I mean what is going to change and what would be the loss for them by leaving this.

It may affect the filming of game of thrones. That's really all I'm worried about.

 

[JohnBlue]

It may affect the filming of game of thrones. That's really all I'm worried about.

Now there sir is a problem. Thank goodness for the free city of Braavos where they can continue filming without disruption.

 

[krazykats]

You're probably right about not being 500.

A lot of it was surprise as well, most didn't think it would pass. The polls at the end all showed remain winning, it was unexpected.

Wait so the polls were wrong? Amazing!

 

[krazykats]

Without me trying to translate political agenda's in the thread, what does this mean for England. I mean what is going to change and what would be the loss for them by leaving this.

Honestly I think the biggest thing for them is whether foreign countries continue trading the same way. Given the push for globalism and them rejecting that some countries may hold that against them.

Another thing to wait and see is the cooperation of the people. Of course the news outlets show a majority of people that are against the Brexit but to what degree could cause chaos within their borders.

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

I'm not mad at the executives that make those decisions, I understand why they do. I'm upset at our politicians for passing the laws and acts that make it possible.

Amen Brother Derington. Getting pissed off at businesses, and specifically CEOs, is insane. If they don't maximize profit their shareholders will get rid of them. Period.

The reason we have government is to ensure that our economic policies benefit the country as a whole. I'd argue they haven't done that in the past 30 years. Allowing China to take our MFG base was insanity. NAFTA was okay in a vacuum, but throw in China and it too was brutal.