jump to navigation

The Financial Press Doesn’t Understand That It’s Explaining Brexit with Every Article It Writes June 24, 2016

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

I certainly didn’t have a dog in the Brexit fight – I guess I have a slight preference for UK independence just because the world seems like it’s getting too monolithic and homogenous. And, of course, the central planning of the EU has all the problems that central planning always does, so philosophically I like to see more localized decision-making. Still, though, it’s a weak academic preference.

But the unexpected amusement value of watching all the proponents of the EU freak out is making me a big fan of Brexit. For example, I think that the coverage of the reaction of the stock markets, is hilariously myopic. The financial press is doing its Chicken Little “OMG, Brexit is crashing the world’s finances,” as in this article from Bloomberg:

The world’s 400 richest people lost $127.4 billion Friday as global equity markets reeled from the news that British voters elected to leave the European Union. The billionaires lost 3.2 percent of their total net worth, bringing the combined sum to $3.9 trillion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

It’s just stunning that these reporters can’t turn that factoid around, because it explains why Brexit really happened. Rather than just lamenting those financial losses (which are certainly mostly transient), if you step back for a moment you can see who benefited most from EU membership.

Very simply, those who are losing the most right now are the very people that the EU served best. For the little guys, not so much. Central planning always works out well for the central planners and those who can influence the central planners. The hoi polloi? They’re just money crops for the planners and their cronies.

So there’s no mystery as to why the Brexit vote went the way it did. It’s the same situation as our throw-the-doors-open-wide immigration policy, which makes companies more profitable and raises stock prices, but which compromises the lifestyle, safety, and economic opportunities of the folk at the lower end of the income spectrum.

Which brings us to Trump, who, very unfortunately, is the only candidate who seems to have grokked this fact. Hence his popularity.

Comments»

1. geoff - June 24, 2016

Good article in the same vein from Legal Insurrection. With pop music, even.

2. Kristy Crosby - June 25, 2016

As a friend of mine wrote, after reading this, “Bingo!”

Kristy Crosby

3. Tushar - June 26, 2016

I knew I was in favor of Brexit when Obama came out against it, and threatened UK that they will go to the back of the queue when it comes to negotiating Trade deals.

Right after the Brexit reaults came out, Trump should have said this:

“President Obama has threatened UK that they will go to the back of the queue. Hillary will follow that policy. She has followed and agreed to continue every Obama policy. This one won’t be different.
I think it is wrong to try to influence our oldest ally with such threats.
As president, my first act in the area of global trade will be to invite UK delegation for trade talks and chalk out a mutually beneficial trade treaty as soon as possible.”

It is still not too late. Tie Hillary to Obama’s foolish remarks.

4. digitalbrownshirt - June 27, 2016

Instead we got ”Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote,”

Scotland, where they voted 62% against Brexit.

Get used to saying “Trump should have said …”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: