Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

Just reading through much of the so called ‘analysis’ on why Brexit will be such a disaster, higher unemployment, falling trade, falling house prices, Bank exposure to non-performing loans, lower capital investment, falling pound and uncertainty.

I might have missed a few.

But, for all the hyperbole, there is a lack of cogent analysis.

Trade is important. If however you are trading goods/services that are in demand because they are either higher quality, or competitive on price, why, apart from subsidies, would you lose that trade.

If you hold the trade simply because of government subsidies, then, likely, that line of investment is not standalone profitable and valuable resources are being misallocated.

This is the nature of EU trade. We buy French XYZ and the French buy our ABC. Would that trade exist absent any government intervention? Maybe yes, maybe no.

As to the banks.

The banks should have been lending to qualified buyers and securing those loans with collateral that could support a default. The problem with inflated housing bubble prices is that the collateral never supports a default. The bank is usually overexposed.

From when I last lived in London, your average wage couldn’t buy a house/flat in London. The problem has only become worse. A fall in prices will see a steady demand for property at lower prices… is as usual, the banks that have been caught out through chasing mortgage fees etc.

Capital investment is a function of return [profitability] to capital. A high return, sees increasing investment. A low return, low investment or even liquidation. Therefore, fears of falling investment suggest that there was a lot of government subsidy, driven by EU membership, to invested capital. If that pork disappears, then of course the capital investment falls in tandem, or is liquidated.