Friday, 21 October 2016
More on trade deals, and CETA collapsing.
So today I open Facebook, and see rather a few of my left-leaning friends post the story of the Belgian region of Wallonia causing the EU to, in effect, abandon the CETA trade deal with Canada. Naturally, to the remain camp, this is yet another scare story, I guess because it's meant to "prove" that negotiating trade deals with the EU is a long, windy, and complex process. And indeed it is.
But this story is in fact the exact opposite. It's a stellar example of why we want to leave that club. First off, a core reason why negotiating anything with the EU is because the other party, in effect, is not negotiating with the EU itself, but rather negotiating with 27 separate entities constituting the EU. In fact, arguably this rejection is the result of even more negotiating parties, as it wasn't even the sovereign nation of Belgium rejecting the deal - it was a region within. Picture this scenario, you wish to sell a product, say roses, to your neighbour, who in return wants to trade milk, but rather than dealing with him directly, he decides to pull in 26 family members and friends who also sell their own products - one might even sell a different type of rose! Now you're supposed to outline a deal. Now anyone coming to the conclusion that this will do anything but increase the amount of red tape, exemptions, and bespoke language on a per-product basis in the final deal clearly hasn't paid any attention to how the EU negotiates with her neighbours. Because that's exactly what takes place. Wallonia wants exemptions on milk, Bavaria on cars, Val de Loire on wine, and Peloponnese in Greece on cheese. Good luck sorting all of that out.
The alternative - which is what the UK opted to do - is to negotiate treaties between singular authorities of sovereign nations, not needing the explicit input of each individual region in order to proceed. Now, this might be an argument for the EU superstate, and fair enough, that's what some do wish for. However, that was not on the June the 22nd ballot, and had it been, it's very questionable if the referendum had been even close. Because it would have been the equivalent of transferring negotiating power to Brussels, a loss of sovereignty - an option not palatable to the clear majority of voters.
Finally, I want to point out the sheer ludicrousness of lefties actually wanting this deal to go through considering I see so many denouncing the TPP, for especially the ISDS chapter. Well, guess what. ISDS provisions exist in CETA just as well. If you're for the CETA, you're very for the TPP just as well.
Thursday, 2 June 2016
Why we should leave the EU, part 2. Trade deals (aka "the uncertainty issue")
a) There would have been no point in negotiating exit trade deals, as Germany and France especially would have made no realistic effort towards productive talks. As they don’t want the UK to leave (they need others to help pay the bills), it would be entirely in their interest to obstruct these negotiations in every way possible, thereby creating what would appear an exit path fraught with uncertainty.
b) Although 50+% of our exports go to the Eurozone, that is largely because those nations constitute our neighbours, and not implicitly because of the Eurozone itself. In fact, virtually all nations in the world trade mainly with countries in geographical proximity, with some notable particular exceptions such as China, who essentially act as a global manufacturing base.
c) As for the UK “being too small to cut trade deals”, that’s simply not true. The UK is a major global economy, and far smaller nations have cut their own trade deals - Canada being an example in this regard. A/NZ another.
d) Speaking of trade deals, the EU at present has free trade deals with many nations, including the likes of Kosovo, Lebanon, Mexico, and even Palestine - which isn't even a country. On this basis, why would they reject one with a neighbour, which also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world?
e) Cutting trade altogether, or even introducing nuclear tariff systems, is two steps short of declaring outright war in today’s interconnected world. This is not something done lightly, in fact apart from sanctions introduced vs Russia, post-Crimea, we haven’t seen any examples of this in our part of the world for many years.
f) The EU, as noted above, already feels the pull from the spiralling drain. It wouldn’t take much to tip especially the South back into recession, creating significant systemic risk in the process, and the firepower simply isn’t there to fight yet another looming economic disaster. Were EU members wanting to ‘punish’ the UK for its decision by referendum, they would in effect be playing chicken with their own economies.
g) So in short, it is in everyone’s interest to cooperate. Sure, the EU could hypothetically impose nuclear tariffs, impose significant travel restrictions, and attempt to hurt the UK in any way possible, but the ensuing recoil on their own economies could equally devastate them.
h) Were the EU to ignore all sense and reason and drastically impose the above mentioned sanctions upon the UK in the event of an exit, they in essence confirm their status as a deeply undemocratic organisation which takes more interest in their own institutional survival, than acting on the behalf of their electorate. And I can think of no better reason to want out, because that’s a hallmark of any authoritarian governance.
Finally, yes, there will be a period of instability should we decide to leave. But this election is not about the short term. And in the long run, I personally think the UK will be better off out, especially given the systemic issues plaguing the South of Europe, which will eventually spring back to life.
Why we should leave the EU
a) The EU is fundamentally anti-democratic. They have a parliament in which members of which can not introduce laws, or have them repealed. All laws are penned and introduced by the commission. MEPs can vote on these, even suggest changes, but the commission is free to ignore all said communication.
b) The EU is essentially a basketcase, financially. The entire of Club Med still persists in dire straits, in desperate need of avoiding another recession. Public sector debt ratios are historically high, and it's obvious to everyone paying attention that these will never be repaid in an honest way. Greece are inching closer to 200% debt/GDP mark, Italy at around 135%, and Spain crossed the 100% recently - with a historic level of unemployment to boot.
c) Italy's private banking sector has 360bn Euro of non-performing loans on their balance sheets, with an additional 180bn in distress - amounting to roughly 25% of their GDP. There is simply insufficient capital to bail them out without extraordinary policy, and where is the political goodwill for another round of escalating bailouts to big banks? Politicians agreeing to this wouldn’t survive the next election.
d) Greece are months, even weeks away from needing another bailout, although obviously, it's won't be called that. Oh, and 45% of all private loans in Greece are non-performing, meaning a bank collapse would be upcoming were it not for continuous behind-the-scenes borderline corruption by the ECB and their various colleagues in European national banks. Did you know that is was illegal for the ECB to engage in QE programs until fairly recently? Well, it was, and then lawyers located a convenient loophole, and suddenly it was just A-OK.
e) Since 2008, the EU has seen anaemic growth (in the 1% range), and the entire zone depends on Germany, not entering a recession. The UK has done far better in this regard. In fact, of the entire developed world, only really Japan has done as poorly as the EU.
f) The above issues b-e will eventually be "solved" through full fiscal union. By then, per decree, the North will be forced to continuously pay for the South. And once that ball is in motion, there will be no reason for the South to even attempt to balance their budgets.
g) And then there's Merkel's audacity, and borderline dictatorial behaviour in dealing with immigration.
h) Finally, the EU actually want to ban "right wing extremism", by punishing nations electing these. Yes, Juncker actually said this (though obviously, the definition in this regard will be so vague it can be applied to practically anything). That's right. Your vote WILL be overruled by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the heart of Europe if or when they see fit, because they are your rulers and you better accept it. Because fuck you, that's why.
Oh, and btw - did anyone tell you that we're technically overdue a recession?
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
The BBC and its alleged EU impartiality.
Living in the UK, you tend to hear a lot about the BBC and its supposed impartiality. By law, the BBC is supposed to be impartial, and were you to ask people on the political left, the opinion generally suggests that those questioning the impartiality of the BBC are an inch or two short of crackpots. However, on the right public opinion isn't quite as simple. On a number of occasions, audiences and/or panels appear to have been stacked (especially when it comes to Question Time), and the Conservatives (and especially UKIP) have been on the receiving end of exceedingly harsh treatment, leading to the Conservatives reviewing BBC funding as a result of their 2015 election coverage. License payer fees are obviously not to benefit one political party over another, yet that is exactly what appear to be happening. And should you look into past controversies, it's clear that impartiality has not always exactly been a priority within the walls of the BBC.
Wikipedia have an entire article on this topic - "Criticism of the BBC" [1]. Most telling is this quote from their former Director General -
"Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC said in 2010 "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality." [5]"
Needless to say, this remains a hotly debated topic, and this is far from the only quote to support the case. The BBC defend themselves using a Cardiff University study, which allegedly show the Conservatives receiving more air time than Labour, with more focus on Tory ministers than equivalent Labour shadow ministers. Two problems however - the Tories were in power at the time, meaning it's only natural they get more exposure, and b) The BBC commissioned and PAID for this study. Much like Microsoft commissioned studies showing Microsoft Vista being the favoured consumer OS back in 2006, this blatantly has potential conflicts of interest undermining its supposed credibility.
However, the political bias of the BBC was not really what I wanted to focus on here. We're currently in the run-up to the EU referendum on the 23rd of June. And once again, the "alleged" impartiality of the BBC rears its ugly head. We are supposed to be broadcast an evenly matched Stay/Leave informative trail, but that is not what appears to be happening - the claim is that the EU is in the camp of Stay. Now, rather than go through various articles here and there, I wish to focus on just one thing - funding. External funding, to be precise. You can of course claim that external funds make no differences in terms of bias or partiality, but then you'd have to accept that the various large donors to political parties - including unions - do so exclusively for altruistic reasons.
To start off with, the BBC runs a trust formerly known as "The BBC World Service Trust", now "BBC Media Action". Although supposedly financially independent, it has received over 30m Euro of EU funding during 2007-2014 - translating to just over 4m euro each year. This is all public information - head over to the EU's financial transparency system website and check for yourself [5]. Now, obviously, the counterargument is that since this is a financially independent institution, it won't impact the BBC - however, facts are that a) the BBC will scoop up goodwill by having their brand attached, and b) there's a large overlap in directorships between the BBC and their Media Action group - the Telegraph goes further into details in this regard. Furthermore, given an annual budget around the 40m mark, this would suggest EU funding makes up about 8% of their total funding. Should the BBC start broadcasting euro-skeptic information, what would happen to those 8%? Can anyone point me to a single case of the EU funding openly EU skeptical institutions to the tune of 4m Euros/year? I certainly haven't found any.
Furthermore, in terms of direct funding, the BBC received about £1m of EU funds in the period April 2011 - November 2013 specifically for programming [9]. Note that this information wasn't even in the public domain until a freedom of information request was successfully lodged by the Spectator [7].
In 1993, the EU commissioned and paid for a member of the European Parliament, Willy deClercq, to write a little known document by the catchy name of "Reflection on Information and Communication Policy of the European Community" [8]. This document outlines "marketing techniques" which are to "sell the European Union to its citizens" - it frankly reads like brainwashing 101. I've included some passages below, but heavily recommend you read the document in full. Take note of the highlighted sections below - they specifically cover who to target by the EU funded propaganda, how, and who should fund it... and next we find that the BBC receive EU funds for programming? What an extraordinary coincidence.
This is not to say that this is conclusive evidence of the EU conspiring with public broadcasters (in this case, the BBC) to brainwash target demographics using taxpayer funds. But it's certainly an extraordinary coincidence. Yes, that's what it is - an extraordinary coincidence.
"Youth : Young people of different nationalities in Europe probably have more in common with each other than they do with their parents. They are certainly more open to European values and ideals than the older generations. Since it is strategically wise to go where the resistance is least, young people should be a primary target for persuasion and conviction." [page 12]
"The communication of 'Europe' must be a continuous process of education, culture and formation, starting at secondary school stage. School books should be reviewed, not in order to rewrite history, but to ensure that a European dimension is given to our past, and that the events leading up to European Union are explained to, and understood by school children. The European dimension should be emphasized particularly in subjects such as geography, history, economics and civics. More European schools should also be encouraged." [page 27]
"The programmes must be total and continuous, covering television, radio and press relations, editorial support, advertising, public relations, direct marketing, public speaking, interviews, visits by special-interest groups, special issue EC postage stamps (with ECU equivalent values), the publication of specific-interest pamphlets, etc." [page 31]
"Co-funding of national campaigns by the Commission is one way to ensure that the Commission is involved in national campaigns before they are launched. " [page 32]
"Newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union. It is crucial to change their opinions first, so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause. " [page 35]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Wikipedia have an entire article on this topic - "Criticism of the BBC" [1]. Most telling is this quote from their former Director General -
"Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC said in 2010 "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality." [5]"
Needless to say, this remains a hotly debated topic, and this is far from the only quote to support the case. The BBC defend themselves using a Cardiff University study, which allegedly show the Conservatives receiving more air time than Labour, with more focus on Tory ministers than equivalent Labour shadow ministers. Two problems however - the Tories were in power at the time, meaning it's only natural they get more exposure, and b) The BBC commissioned and PAID for this study. Much like Microsoft commissioned studies showing Microsoft Vista being the favoured consumer OS back in 2006, this blatantly has potential conflicts of interest undermining its supposed credibility.
However, the political bias of the BBC was not really what I wanted to focus on here. We're currently in the run-up to the EU referendum on the 23rd of June. And once again, the "alleged" impartiality of the BBC rears its ugly head. We are supposed to be broadcast an evenly matched Stay/Leave informative trail, but that is not what appears to be happening - the claim is that the EU is in the camp of Stay. Now, rather than go through various articles here and there, I wish to focus on just one thing - funding. External funding, to be precise. You can of course claim that external funds make no differences in terms of bias or partiality, but then you'd have to accept that the various large donors to political parties - including unions - do so exclusively for altruistic reasons.
To start off with, the BBC runs a trust formerly known as "The BBC World Service Trust", now "BBC Media Action". Although supposedly financially independent, it has received over 30m Euro of EU funding during 2007-2014 - translating to just over 4m euro each year. This is all public information - head over to the EU's financial transparency system website and check for yourself [5]. Now, obviously, the counterargument is that since this is a financially independent institution, it won't impact the BBC - however, facts are that a) the BBC will scoop up goodwill by having their brand attached, and b) there's a large overlap in directorships between the BBC and their Media Action group - the Telegraph goes further into details in this regard. Furthermore, given an annual budget around the 40m mark, this would suggest EU funding makes up about 8% of their total funding. Should the BBC start broadcasting euro-skeptic information, what would happen to those 8%? Can anyone point me to a single case of the EU funding openly EU skeptical institutions to the tune of 4m Euros/year? I certainly haven't found any.
Furthermore, in terms of direct funding, the BBC received about £1m of EU funds in the period April 2011 - November 2013 specifically for programming [9]. Note that this information wasn't even in the public domain until a freedom of information request was successfully lodged by the Spectator [7].
In 1993, the EU commissioned and paid for a member of the European Parliament, Willy deClercq, to write a little known document by the catchy name of "Reflection on Information and Communication Policy of the European Community" [8]. This document outlines "marketing techniques" which are to "sell the European Union to its citizens" - it frankly reads like brainwashing 101. I've included some passages below, but heavily recommend you read the document in full. Take note of the highlighted sections below - they specifically cover who to target by the EU funded propaganda, how, and who should fund it... and next we find that the BBC receive EU funds for programming? What an extraordinary coincidence.
This is not to say that this is conclusive evidence of the EU conspiring with public broadcasters (in this case, the BBC) to brainwash target demographics using taxpayer funds. But it's certainly an extraordinary coincidence. Yes, that's what it is - an extraordinary coincidence.
"Youth : Young people of different nationalities in Europe probably have more in common with each other than they do with their parents. They are certainly more open to European values and ideals than the older generations. Since it is strategically wise to go where the resistance is least, young people should be a primary target for persuasion and conviction." [page 12]
"The communication of 'Europe' must be a continuous process of education, culture and formation, starting at secondary school stage. School books should be reviewed, not in order to rewrite history, but to ensure that a European dimension is given to our past, and that the events leading up to European Union are explained to, and understood by school children. The European dimension should be emphasized particularly in subjects such as geography, history, economics and civics. More European schools should also be encouraged." [page 27]
"The programmes must be total and continuous, covering television, radio and press relations, editorial support, advertising, public relations, direct marketing, public speaking, interviews, visits by special-interest groups, special issue EC postage stamps (with ECU equivalent values), the publication of specific-interest pamphlets, etc." [page 31]
"Co-funding of national campaigns by the Commission is one way to ensure that the Commission is involved in national campaigns before they are launched. " [page 32]
"Newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union. It is crucial to change their opinions first, so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause. " [page 35]
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Deficits, schmeficits.
This morning, the deficit reality came in worse than projected:
No doubt, it is partially this realization which has driven gold to an all-time high when denominated in Pound Sterling this morning. £957.63/oz as we speak. But if the madmen at BoE actually go through with this, no doubt we'll see £1,000/oz hit in no time - unfortunately, this will almost certainly be with the companionship of further price increases at the supermarkets, and the petrol stations.
And it's worth recalling that it was inflation which brought out the masses in the Middle East.
...the fall in borrowing could not fully offset the impact of the disappointing April, leaving the deficit for the financial year to date at £27.4bn, a record for the period as the Government borrowed £1.5bn more than a year ago.One of the key reasons behind devaluing ones currency, is to become more internationally competitive, favouring local producers over foreign. This should in turn mean higher exports and fewer imports, which over time will reduce the deficit. So, when this in fact doesn't quite turn out as expected, what could possibly be the solution?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8590527/UK-deficit-hits-record-despite-1.1bn-axe-on-borrowing.html
...it should not be assumed that the £200bn quantitative easing (QE) programme is over just because inflation is more than double the target level at 4.5pc.When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's right, the BoE is starting to bang the drums, hence preparing the proles for another round of Quantitative Easing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8590058/Bank-of-Englands-Paul-Fisher-says-more-QE-possible-despite-high-inflation.html
No doubt, it is partially this realization which has driven gold to an all-time high when denominated in Pound Sterling this morning. £957.63/oz as we speak. But if the madmen at BoE actually go through with this, no doubt we'll see £1,000/oz hit in no time - unfortunately, this will almost certainly be with the companionship of further price increases at the supermarkets, and the petrol stations.
And it's worth recalling that it was inflation which brought out the masses in the Middle East.
Monday, 20 June 2011
On the Greeks leaving the Euro.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8588047/Treasury-plans-for-Greece-to-go-bust.html
First off are the well known direct implications with regards to the owners of Greek government bonds. Whoever hold these - banks, retirement funds, hedge funds - will eventually need to accept a significant haircut (writedown on the value of the bonds). Already, yields are reaching astronomical figures, a direct result of no-one wishing to buy Greek government debt, thereby effectively reflecting an expectation of an upcoming default.
But a far greater problem it could be to allow the Greeks to leave the Euro. In the event this were to happen, the Greeks wouldn't actually need to formally declare bankruptcy - they could instead forcibly convert their bonds to Drachma denominated, only then to let the currency crash. It should be rather obvious this really is no different to actually declaring bankruptcy, as for the bondholders the net result is the same - a significant haircut.
But the implications of letting the Greeks perform this covert bankruptcy stretches beyond the Aegean Sea. It would in an instant leave the bond market for other borderline bankrupt nations completely frozen - if the Greeks can leave the Euro, stuffing the bondholders in the process, why wouldn't Portugal and Ireland follow in their tracks? This would case yields on not only currently troubled nations such as Ireland and Portugal to go parabolic, but also - from a point of view of scale of the respective bond markets - far larger nations such as Spain and Italy.
And if yields for Spain and Italy were to skyrocket, it could become an almost overnight self-fulfilling prophecy - these nations could be forced into bankruptcy, as the bondmarket no longer would have any faith in these nations staying in the Euro, the very thing the European Central Bank and the IMF have been attempting to avoid.
In an emergency debate, senior MPs from all parties demanded that Britain stand aside from a new rescue package for Greece and push for the country to leave the euro.Although I most certainly don't support this pointless waste of money bailing out bankrupt nations truly is, there are substantial dangers in not only allowing these to default, but to have them leave the Euro as well.
First off are the well known direct implications with regards to the owners of Greek government bonds. Whoever hold these - banks, retirement funds, hedge funds - will eventually need to accept a significant haircut (writedown on the value of the bonds). Already, yields are reaching astronomical figures, a direct result of no-one wishing to buy Greek government debt, thereby effectively reflecting an expectation of an upcoming default.
But a far greater problem it could be to allow the Greeks to leave the Euro. In the event this were to happen, the Greeks wouldn't actually need to formally declare bankruptcy - they could instead forcibly convert their bonds to Drachma denominated, only then to let the currency crash. It should be rather obvious this really is no different to actually declaring bankruptcy, as for the bondholders the net result is the same - a significant haircut.
But the implications of letting the Greeks perform this covert bankruptcy stretches beyond the Aegean Sea. It would in an instant leave the bond market for other borderline bankrupt nations completely frozen - if the Greeks can leave the Euro, stuffing the bondholders in the process, why wouldn't Portugal and Ireland follow in their tracks? This would case yields on not only currently troubled nations such as Ireland and Portugal to go parabolic, but also - from a point of view of scale of the respective bond markets - far larger nations such as Spain and Italy.
And if yields for Spain and Italy were to skyrocket, it could become an almost overnight self-fulfilling prophecy - these nations could be forced into bankruptcy, as the bondmarket no longer would have any faith in these nations staying in the Euro, the very thing the European Central Bank and the IMF have been attempting to avoid.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Mervyn King says the rise in inflation is temporary.
Do you worry about the increasing expectations of inflation? Well, worry not, the Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, asserts it is nothing to worry about:
April 18, 2007
The Governor said that inflation had become more volatile, in line with the Bank’s forecast, and he repeated its view that inflation was likely to fall back “within a matter of months”.
21 June 2007
Our central view remains that inflation will fall back this year as the rises in domestic gas and electricity prices last year drop out of the annual comparison, and the recent cuts in prices feed through to household bills. But it is important to look through those temporary effects to the outlook further ahead.
Oct 12, 2007
“The inflation report describes a benign central view of steady growth with inflation remaining close to the target,” said governor Mervyn King.
14/2/2008
However, he anticipated that the rise in inflation would be temporary and would be due to increases in imported energy and food prices that were unlikely to recur.
12:30PM BST 17 Jun 2008
The Bank Governor indicates that the recent rise in inflation is both largely beyond his control, having been generated by international factors, and will be temporary.
16 September 2008
"Inflation has risen sharply this year, from 2.1% in December, to 4.7% in August. Inflation is ultimately determined by the pressure of money spending on capacity, which is controlled by monetary policy. But, other factors both here and in the rest of the world can have temporary implications for inflation.
16 Dec 2008
The MPC considers the direct price level effects associated with the changes in VAT to be an example of such a temporary disturbance.
03.24.09
British consumer price inflation rose unexpectedly to 3.2 percent in February, data showed on Tuesday, and Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said it was probably a temporary move due to sterling weakness.
1/8/2009
it is likely that overall CPI inflation will return to target in the first half of 2009 and then move materially below it later in the year.
13 Oct 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/6314867/UK-inflation-falls-to-lowest-in-five-years.html
"In August, Governor King forecast inflation falling 'quickly' with the chances of it dropping below 1pc as 'more likely than not," said Philip Shaw, an economist at Investec.
December 16, 2009
As the Monetary Policy Committee [MPC] learnt last year, a temporary rise in inflation, by itself, is not a good reason to raise interest rates.
6:00AM GMT 17 Feb 2010
In the letter, the Governor said the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) expected the rise to be "a temporary deviation of inflation from the target" because of short-term factors including VAT, the volatility of oil prices, and the fall in sterling in 2007 and 2008 which is still feeding through.
May 19, 2010 - 02:19 AM
The MPC judges that together these factors more than account for the deviation of CPI inflation from target and that the temporary effects of these factors are masking the downward pressure on inflation from the substantial margin of spare capacity in the economy.
10:54PM BST 14 Aug 2010
However, Mr King has repeatedly argued that high inflation will be the temporary result of one-off shocks – including higher fuel prices and, from January 2011, the rise in VAT to 20pc from 17.5pc – while a sustained UK economic recovery is not yet guaranteed
15 November 2010
As I described in my August letter, the MPC's assessment is that the current elevated rate of inflation largely reflects a number of temporary influences
6:00AM GMT 16 Feb 2011
Mr King believes inflation should ease as "temporary" factors such as the VAT rise, the low value of the pound and rising energy prices fall away.
So, worry not. The current inflationary trend is "temporary", and will - as has been repeatedly assured for months, even years now - fall back to within its 2.0% target any day now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)