Hacker News Reader

Londoner here. Been to Frankfurt: it's small, but it's lovely. Only thing holding me back from moving is a mortgage and school-age children.

(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)

> "(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)"

How is it going to ruin our country?

Let's be realistic. Will there be an economic downturn? Signs point to yes. However, businesses do not pass up the opportunity to make money for long.

Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.

Imports and exports will be affected whilst markets adjust, and hopefully there'll be a soft Brexit to make this adjustment period quicker, but even with hard Brexit the economy will stabilise and grow in time. Products intended for domestic markets may end up becoming more attractive for investors in the short term whilst this period of uncertainty plays out. There are always ways to make money, and those who keep their cool are much more likely to spot those opportunities than those who panic.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but I don't think your conclusions are supported by your argument.

The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.

Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it.

Now, there's a problem with this analysis, which is that Brexit hasn't happened yet. This cuts both ways: the final state hasn't been reached, but also the economy's a lot more resilient inside the EU than outside, because the lack of tariff and non-tariff barriers helps with the rebalancing you describe.

So, for the future, a good question is: how are our preparations going? Well, the NAO says that they're barely going at all, the repeal bill says we're basically going to have to put up with direct monarchial rule to survive and to date we seem to be capitulating on every point of contention. What's worse is the points we're not capitulating on, because we're an 1/8th of the way through the process and haven't even got the status of EU citizens sorted out.

Even if the negotiations go well, we're talking about ripping up 40 years of settled U.K. law and replacing it with... well, ministers haven't decided yet, but they don't want parliament to have a vote when they do.

So, as I see it there's basically two possible outcomes here: 1) the EU retains most of the benefits of U.K. membership 2) hard Brexit. Die-hard Leavers have long argued that the EU is too complex, and the EU shows no inclination to make it more complex to suit Britain. Either way, we will be worse placed to trade with the rest of the world.

You're right, even in the case of hard Brexit the economy would eventually grow again. Would it grow as fast as it would within the EU? There's no reason to believe so. So we're looking at a huge one off hit and permanent reduced growth.

Sorry, this is quite long and probably not as clear as I'd hoped. I've also probably missed a fair number of important points. I haven't even touched on the _non_economic problems with leaving the EU. But I think it's clear that, while there are always ways to make money, Brexit is likely to be a negative sum game.

Thank you for your considered reply. I did read all of it, but I'd like to focus on the following first:

> "The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.

Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it."

The following distinctions are slightly crude, but hopefully they serve a purpose. There's a difference between the productive economy and the speculative economy. The productive economy is based around changes in the material world. The speculative economy is based around opinions. Stock markets are effectively opinion poll trackers (opinions either baked into mathematical models or in the heads of traders).

It's no surprise that the pound dropped after the Brexit result, because we're looking at a period of uncertainty, which makes predictions harder and traders more risk averse.

However, in the productive economy in the same time period, there hasn't been an 80% drop in the output of the real economy. The jobs market is still strong, people still produce roughly the same level of goods and services as they did a year ago, etc...

What I predict will happen after the period of uncertainty ends is that opinions will catch up to reality and traders will realise their models of economic output were out, leading to a readjustment in the stock markets.

The problem is, as people have gotten so hysterical about Brexit, the period of uncertainty will probably last longer than it should, and this loss of confidence can have an impact on the productive economy over time. That's my main concern over Brexit, that it'll be the reaction to it that causes a longer economic downturn than is necessary. My only hope with this is linked to more people becoming adept at seeing through the mechanisms of the UK's toxic media institutions.

That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)

I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without.

It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).

That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime.

> "That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)"

Yeah, I'm Theresa May, ask me anything. ;-)

> "I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without."

If the only consideration was the economy I'd agree with you, but there's more at play here than just the economy.

> "It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).

That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime."

Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?

> Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?

I am very much pro EU. I also see flaws with the current EU, but to me they can only be solved by more EU not by stepping back. More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems.

To me the benefits (stance in the world, peace, freedom of movement) outweigh the costs and problems by such a huge margin. I was born after the cold war and to me the integrity of states or peace always seemed like a solved issue, but as you can see in Ukraine it is not at all.

Compare problems of that scale to working out some bugs in a monetary union, which btw. is even working pretty well, considering that something like this has never worked before.

It is a monumental and exciting project. Some sort of peaceful empire, where every nation and people actually benefits and nobody is forced to participate. We are basically writing history. To me "Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.", seems like a perfect ending of the current chapter.

> "More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems."

That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement?

> ""Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.""

Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?

Pro-centralisation and pro-democracy don't exclude each other.

Depends on how it's done, but generally local politics can be more reactive to local needs than centralised politics. As always, there's a balance to be found, but that's generally the case. To give a more concrete example, who do you think has a better sense of the struggles the Greek people currently face, people who live in Greece or people who live in Belgium?

> That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement?

I am pro-centralisation in the sense, that I see areas where the benefits are obvious: everything regarding unified market, freedom and access for people, military, foreign policy, environmental issues. I also see areas where you have to be careful: privacy, data protection, lack of transparency, lack of control.

What I do have is a mindset, of paying it forward a bit and not having to get instant compensation. I am for example generally okay with the EU building infrastructure in poorer countries. We will get that value back, but it will take its time and it will come in different, hard to be measured forms. That's why I think you should not be to pedantic when measuring your own benefit. It evens out, while the overall value steadily increases the more countries work together. It is not only about whether your piece of the cake is a tiny bit bigger, but also the overall size of the cake increases.

I do see, how such thoughts are harder to have, when you are living in one of the paying countries and personally feeling left behind.

> Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?

No, not at all. I am just saying that Asia is on its way to the top and that the EU cannot count on the US staying world leader. Countries like Germany, France or Great Britain will have no say in world politics whatsoever, while the EU as a whole can be a stable local power big enough to be heard in the world and pursue its interest and have some influence.

>Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.

So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state.

And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain.

There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU.

The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-f...

> "Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain."

The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?

Is there opportunity? Sure. Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs? I am extremely skeptical such a thing is possible for Britain and until that happens the revenue to Britain's economy and tax coffers are undeniably lost and cannot be recovered. You are once again blithely ignoring the fact that brexit directly resulted in finance companies moving out of Britain. There is no backfill by competitors to be had.

In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.

> "Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs?"

Two points:

1. I see over-reliance on any one industry as a weakness. The idea would be to find constructive uses for the talents of those in the financial industry elsewhere. There are a diverse range of industries that could benefit from numerically literate people. To give one example, energy management is going to be a growing field as we move towards renewables, both in terms of planning new installations and in balancing the demands on the grid. Is that going to soak up all of the lost jobs? No, but I wouldn't want it to, otherwise we'd have another 'too big to fail' industry, the idea is to spread the talent around.

2. You point at lost tax revenues, but the financial services industry appears to be the worst offender when it comes to tax avoidance. I'd much rather people were employed in jobs where they paid tax, even if their nominal salaries may be lower.

To give some idea of how bad tax avoidance in the UK financial sector is, and how much other companies depend on UK-based financial institutions for their tax avoidance, take a look at the following links:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion-w...

http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/finance-sector/enablers-and...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom07yGhg0Q

Also, to nip the whole 'membership of the EU helps clamp down on tax avoidance' line in the bud, the EU have known about schemes like the 'Dutch Sandwich with a Double Irish' for years and haven't put a stop to it, so their record isn't exactly stellar:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-used-d...

You seem to think that Euro-clearing is the only thing that banks do... And you're forgetting the nuclear option.

> By the way: there are only few "real Frankfurters" like me there (born and raised here with German parents...). Even other Germans mostly moved here from other cities. Within my close colleagues, I am the exception as someone who spent almost his entire life here. What that means: we are pretty open for everyone. We don't care where you are from, we don't prefer doing business with people that speak the local dialect (which might happen in other parts of Germany).

As a German, who moved to Frankfurt, I second that notion. I feel very much at home here. I think you can never truely become a Münchner, you will always be foreign. And in Berlin it is kind of a meme, that you have to start hating the newly arriving Schwaben, as soon as you have been living there for more than 3 months.

Everyone knows about local traditions in cities like Cologne and you think about these things, when moving there, while Frankfurt seems much more approachable. Guests visiting me are often amazed that there are actually quite a few cultural features specific to the region.

Sounding like you come from Frankfurt (on a beginner level) is super easy, too. You just become lazier and stop pronouncing word-endings and use softer consonants.

Haha :) me and my family speak "Hochdeutsch" even as locals, but I will try to recognize your description.

> What that means: we are pretty open for everyone. We don't care where you are from, we don't prefer doing business with people that speak the local dialect (which might happen in other parts of Germany).

Unless you are from Eastern Germany or overall from Eastern Europe. The stories I hear from friends how welcome they feel in Frankfurt once they mention their origin. All top people US companies are fighting for...

Frankfurt/Offenbach/Rüsselsheim feels less international like Berlin, because most immigrants there seem to be the working class from east Europe, while Berlin somehow managed to get all the white collar expats.

Berlin feels more modern and liberal, while Frankfurt feels like... I don't know.. the Bronx ;)

How's the rent? Ive heard it is the most expensive city to live in Germany.

Munich is more expensive. But Frankfurt's housing prices are rising dramatically recently. My wife and I are currently looking at houses (to buy, we currently rent one...) in the Taunus-mountains (about 10 kilometers away from the luxury homes I mentioned), because only there we can find large enough houses under 500k€ (which, even considering my 6-figure-income, is the maximum I feel comfortable with). Small 120sqm-row-houses, new, in Frankfurt now cost around 800k and everyone I know wonders who are the ones that can afford them and still sleep at night.

> and everyone I know wonders who are the ones that can afford them and still sleep at night.

See OP …

The interesting thing about this is, that Frankfurt is actually doing very much to avoid it. There a mixed-use skyscrapers being built, a whole new district has been created (Europaviertel) recently and a new one is already planned in the North-West.

I think part of the problem is, that Frankfurt is tiny by night and a city of a million people by day. I guess you could build houses for hundreds of thousands of people, prices would sink and people would move in.

All those new quarters you mentioned are damn expensive... I also talked to the vendors of those mixed-use-skyscrapers and If you want to invest less than about 800.000 for a 3-bedroom-appartment, they have nothing for you. Prices are flying high...

You'll have to move away about 30 kilometers to really see lower prices.

Man, Frankfurt is awesome. So is Munchen and Koln. I'm a bit partial to the latter (actually to the whole of NRW, sorry :P) but that's just me :D. Looking forward to moving somewhere in Germany next year.