I worked with a Somalian guy at my last job. He probably contributes more to the Exchequer than you do, and what's more he doesn't contribute pollute British culture with racism, unlike you.

I'd gladly swap a million like him for a million like you.

Another stupid question.

Eventually I hope that standards of living differences across the whole world will be reduced to such a degree that this would be possible, and national borders could become a thing of the past.

Sigh.

Swing and total utter miss. LDO.

I am talking about rejecting the idea that there could be any federated form of Europe, literally any, that would be acceptable to join.

That one rejects any possible political formation that is not predicated on singular national state out of hand and the possibility of any alternative.

This is why saying Europe is not at all terminology, any possible federated Europe could be very different to the present EU.

Its why I asked the question, is there not any form of federated europe you would support?

I am not suggesting someone is a bigot for not wanting to join a federation with no idea how it is configured in advance.

That is just silly, like your examples using Ireland and then USA.

I am suggesting they are a bigot for reflexively dismissing the idea that another way is possible in any form.

Oh, then fine. I would say they are more ignorant than bigotted if they are not aware of other options though. In any case, if they observe Europe they will see a federal system taking root there and will have to believe its possible even if they continue to disagree with you about whether its desirable.

The government is not the same thing as "the economy", - it's a meaninglesss term anyway but in so far as it has meaning, any extra person adds to GDP.

Similar to the discussions on "good/bad for the poker economy", it depends who you are. If you're looking for cheap labour then unskilled immigration is "good for the economy". If you are trying to get on the housing ladder then (in the absence of a magic wand that removes all the current restrictions on building) it's "bad for the economy". If you are a rich old person hoping to bleed the young on rental payments then it's "good for the economy".

Brexit plunges UK economy to worst level since 2009, data suggests

Maybe the plunge is because everyone has been glued to the media for the last few weeks observing politics instead of doing anything.

This must be what normal people feel like when watching Eastenders (to nick a joke from somewhere)

Vicious Power Struggle At Number 10 Downing Street

With all the turmoil and uncertainty surrounding Brexit, a power struggle (a real cat fight) has broken out at No. 10 Downing Street.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...attle-of-powe/

As (Shakespeare?) famously noted: "Heavy is the head upon which lies the crown ..." (or something like that ...)

After a rant full of slippery slopes and simply untrue statements you refer to book which is mostly about personal feelings.

Asking as a somewhat interested yank, which would be the next country in the EU likely to allow a referendum similar to the Brexit vote? I'd guess the powers that be will be doing everything they can to avoid having such a vote, but is it likely anywhere?

MM MD

What's A Good Book That Explains How Financial Markets Work?

Back in my college days (35+ years ago) when I thought I was destined to become a superstar programmer/software engineer, I concentrated on computer science courses and (pretty much) ignored business and economics. (I was so naïve. I thought if you could understand assembly language, you could figure out anything ...)

I do recall taking a basic economics course, which mostly talked about supply and demand and something called the "Phillips" curve. There was also a chapter in the textbook about oversupply of food in the agricultural industry and the "farm" problem. Back in the late 1970's, inflation and unemployment were the two "big things" in economics. As I recall, our professor spent very little (if any) time discussing how the stock market, the bond market, currency markets, precious metals markets, oil markets, et al. work - and how all these markets are interrelated. (Things like credit default swaps, derivatives, and CDOs didn't even exist back then!)

I remember, back in the 1990's, spending time (and money) "dabbling" in the stock market. I quickly discovered you can lose your shirt if you don't understand how all these markets interrelate. I also came to realize that if you really understand how all this works and you have a keen insight before everybody else, (along with the courage to act on your insight), you might strike it rich. (I almost bought 2,000 shares of Iomega Corporation - a maker of computer storage devices - at $2.25/share in June of 1995. However, I decided a secret project they had going in the lab which their CEO called "Orange Juice" - because it was going to give them a much needed shot in the arm - was vaporware, so I passed. A year later, after four stock splits, Iomega's split-adjusted price was almost $200.00/share. Rather than vaporware, for which the technology industry is notorious, "Orange Juice" turned out to be the Zip drive. If I had pulled the trigger at $2.25 - and held on - I would probably be rich right now ...)

So I'm wondering ... Is there an up-to-date [modern] economics book that explains all these topics I hear the folks on CNBC and Bloomberg Television constantly talking about? They seem to assume (on these financial networks) that all their viewers work on Wall Street or the financial district in London. I would like to get hold of a book that explains why bond prices go down when yields go up (or vice versa) and why the stock market goes down when the central bank raises interest rates - and why there is a big argument over whether or not gold is money?

What I would really like is a book that translates all the "financial talk" I hear on these television networks into plain English. Can any of you make a recommendation?

'Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown' -- Henry IV Part II, Act III Scene I.

Cats are cats, anyway. From Sir Arthur Harris's memoir Bomber Offensive (1947):--

Unfortunately I don't have an answer to your question so all I can offer is stupid quips. However the questions you ask at the end are very basic but excellent questions that a good, basic financing book should be able to answer (well that interest rate might be in macro-economics but maybe it's included).

As a non-programmer, it doesn't?

Good, he/she shouldn't talk about silly things like that in economics course, especially 101.

That's like trying to learn about world events to understand Fox News.

I hope not.

I hear they are hiring in Mogadishu if that helps

france if le pen wins next spring maybe. it's not terribly unlikely and everything else is longshots i think.

some balkan countries might vote to join, but i dont think the current members are in any rush to accept them which is a bit of a shame actually.

No, your racism doesn't help anyone.

This presumes that the job would not otherwise be filled by someone in the UK.

And my point stands, why do you feel that someone from i.e Romania should have a greater right to migrate to the UK than someone from i.e Sudan?

I believe in migration to a sustainable level. You believe in migration to the discrimination of all non EU (mostly non white) nationals. You're the racist.

racism? Please explain? I think it's you who is the racist if you scoff at the option of working in Somalia

I was merely taking you at your word and offering a practical solution. What the actual **** are you inferring you oddman?

I don't believe any trade deals (goods or services) should necessarily contain a provision of free movement of workers.

The EU has this as a core point yet it agrees deals with poor nations and seeks to exclude the free movement provision. It's pure hypocrisy and discrimination on part of the EU.

Yet people on this very board support the position and have the cheek to call others racist. It's laughable. They either have no clue what is going on or are discriminatory themselves.

Which answers none of the questions posed.

A significant number of the remain voters are just idiots who believed Cameron when he said World War 3 would result if you voted to leave. See, I can make up garbage just like you.

The irony being that the remain camp would've gladly and blindly led us into adopting the Euro because the only reason for keeping the pound was "KEEP QUEENS HEAD ON MONEY HERP DERP BRITAIN FIRST" obviously and not wanting to be tied to a flailing economic experiment had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Right on old chap!

More rubbish from you, and you know it.

The EU allows for reciprocity for workers seeking jobs in member states, regardless of skin colour. Also, if someone from Sudan or anywhere else wants to work in the UK that's fine by me too, as per my example of my team at my last company, which had people from Ethiopia, Somalia, India and Poland, as well as Brits.

My current team has people from India, Romania and Bulgaria as well as Brits.

How do you feel about that?

Interesting effect of freedom of labour in poorer EU countries... 'ghost towns'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36854272

and here's an imf report on the same

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...16/sdn1607.pdf

I think the majority of the remain camp would of wanted what they thought was best for the country (same as the leave voters). Voting remain didn't necessary mean we wanted to get closer to the EU, or even that we think the EU is working, rather that it was best to stick with for the time being.

Amusing that you use the word 'blindly', as that's EXACTLY how we've gone into the Brexit...

But then the UK has had zero major terrorist incidents since Brexit, compared to one each for Germany and France, so Brexit is already delivering on it's promise to make Britain a safer place to live than the EU.