12th January 2017
Wealth creation, a beginner’s guide.
This article is partly prompted by a, line in a ‘Twitter’ post, ~NHS, put people before profit~. So in other words forget Wealth creation, run the NHS as inefficiently as possible, and spend more money than the entire economy has.
That is basically what the person who thought up the line said.
The person didn’t mean that of course, but then, in UK the majority of people have no idea where profit stems from, or indeed many don’t know what the word means, and that wealth creation and profit are intertwined.
Let’s start at the beginning, Palaeolithic Man, these were hunter gatherers, which means, that when the locally available food was exhausted, as the population rose, they died through starvation. They had discovered fire, which meant they could cook food, which releases more nutrition, which in turn helped to raise the population above that possible before fire. This, along with some minor food processing, such as grinding cereal, led to a higher calorific value available but was limited by what nature provided.
In the film Avatar, they live in a world without money, they are hunter gatherers, however what they don’t show in that film, is what happens when the population reaches saturation point, people die, infants are still born and more mothers die in childbirth.
Period, end of.
Bloated stomachs excruciating slow death
Bloated stomachs excruciating slow death, it is why the population of Australia was so low, around 250,000 when Europeans arrived, (The UK in 1841 was 17 millions) and the larger Australian mammals like the giant Kangaroo had been wiped out for food.
After Palaeolithic times was a fascinating era, called the Mesolithic period, between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago, or 9,600 BC and nearer, depending whereabouts in the world you are looking, 1800 AD in some parts of Africa? This was a transitional time before Neolithic man. The Mesolithic period saw the introduction of semi domesticated animals, as these lived on food sources humans didn’t, they could extend the calorie intake of a group, when drought or other changes in weather occurred.
However the big change came with the Neolithic period, and it introduced ‘profit’ otherwise known as ‘wealth creation’ and ‘value’ these all result from ‘efficiency’, this was due to the biggest revolution to date, namely ‘Farming’.
The example I like to give is these first farmers, realised the hunter gatherer way of life isn’t efficient, so they stop and live in one place and mark out their fields, sow their seed and gather their grain and voila, find they have more food than their immediate needs for the year, the following year as there may well be a drought, so they save what they can for the next year. But as it turns out, no drought occurs, so the next year one of them decides he wants a new axe head, but not any old axe head, he wants the best to flaunt in front of his pals.
So he goes off to the top axe head maker and says, I want a super deluxe axe head, can you make one and I’ll give you 3 months grain for your whole family in exchange for it. At this point I will note, the very first recorded money, was the Shekel a measure of grain, it was in the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia, and is long after this story happened. The axe head maker agrees, thinking to himself I’ve got a good deal here and it will only take me a week to fashion the axe head.
Marx and the Socialists cannot accept this reality
Now there are some points worth noting, no one is poorer, in fact because one person found a more efficient way to work, more people are richer, Marx and the Socialists cannot accept this reality, but then Marx like most Socialists was a parasite who after less than a year’s work, around the age of 25 never did another day’s paid work in his life.
Once you had farmers with a fairly regular surplus of food, they could support Cities. Today we would probably label them Towns, they supported at most a few thousand people, some only hundreds. The Sumerian City of Ur in Mesopotamia is one of the most famous. However with Cities you had a class of people able to employ others due to wealth creation and to do menial tasks, this led to leisure time.
Part of this is due to more efficiencies, that come with Cities, people in close linked contact, able to exchange views and also efficiently exchange goods and services, this all adds to wealth creation.
Profits result from efficiency, so saying “people above profits” is just a silly uneducated statement.
Also because of the geography of Mesopotamia, there were the two rivers the Tigris and Euphrates, traders could make money within a few days travel from one to the other, plus water can carry huge amounts of goods compared to land travel, which leads to more efficiency and wealth creation, hence increased profits. Trade also led to Writing and Arithmetic.
The Sumerians or Mesopotamians (it depends on which era you look at), arose because of a number of factors that were right. But the geography led to good infrastructure, namely rivers to transport goods, and decent road connections due again to geography, between Cities. These all help efficiency, which results in increased profits.
With farming came money, as pointed out the first recorded money was the Shekel a measure of grain, this was in Mesopotamia. However prior to this, money would exist, without there being either a concept of money, nor a word for it.
In fact farming was definitely revolutionary in the economic sense, because it increased productivity multiple times, in one leap. Even the simple act of ensuring there is seed planted, weeds removed, and making sure the area is adequately watered, will have boosted productivity by five to ten fold, don’t believe me, go out and do a little gardening one day?
Such a jump in the amount of food production, would ensure that the current family were well fed, and that in itself would increase the likelihood of any children surviving, thus boosting the population but also leading to more leisure time, and thus more time to think and contemplate.
I realised this was not covered in any Economics books I’ve come across, and indeed the introduction and why money exists is not adequately covered?
Going back to the very first farmers, they merely produced more food than they could use, due to technological advances, some of this would just be wasted, but why waste something so precious, as food, one would save as much as possible to try and prevent a shortage in future years. But in the mean time one has a surplus of a resource, you might as well use it.
fairly miffed, if some lazy hunter gatherer came along
Also worth considering is the idea of ownership would come into existence, a farmer who had worked his/her knuckles to the bone, ensuring their crops were well tended and ready to produce a good harvest, I’m sure would be fairly miffed, if some lazy hunter gatherer came along, and started taking their hard worked grain, and using it for themselves.
But also remember no idea of the concept of money has emerged, so any surplus would be exchanged, and bargained over without there being a regular exchange agreed, or even any word for money.
This idea seems to emerge with the Cities, where you get a number of people, comparing trades. And hence measurement comes into being, in other words more technological improvements, and once you have a measurement of corn, you have an exchange of that measurement with other items.
Actually the Sumerians left lots of info because they wrote on clay tablets, another technological advance, so we have all sorts of Historic artefacts, that lead to how ideas progressed, not least Arithmetic, and even the first recorded joke?
One Sumerian to another.
1st Sumerian, “I say, I say, I say, what’s guaranteed, when a beautiful woman sits on your lap?”
2nd Sumerian, “I don’t know, what is guaranteed when a beautiful woman sits on your lap?”
1st Sumerian, “She farts!”
I thank you, lol. PS if anyone says about another joke “It’s the oldest joke in the book”, you can now be a pub bore, and tell them what is the oldest joke in the book? Babylon Circa 1900 BC.
Back to the plot, efficiency and technological advance is of course what Adam Smith noted was happening, when he related the story of the pin makers and division of labour. But by his time we had various ways of measuring, efficiency, and multiple ways of relating one item in ‘value’ to another. Value of course is not always related to cost, so two items can be the same price, but have different values, and the similar items can have different prices but the same value. These can of course differ from person to person.
A tube of toothpaste purchased for £1 in a Pound shop, can have multiple values to multiple people buying it. To the poorest it might be bought at that shop because it gives the best value, to another it may be ease of location of the shop, and the actual value of no consequence.
consider the science and technology
But pause and consider the science and technology that is required to make that toothpaste, most of these advances were nothing to do with making a product to clean your teeth. Many efficiencies were the by product of other manufactures, but they all lead to an increase in dental hygiene?
These concepts are way outside any Socialist dogma, because Socialism deals in fantasy worlds, where there are only two types, the rich and the poor, balderdash of course, but it persists.
Efficiency creates wealth, and wealth results from profits, I note that President elect Trump, is going to emphasize infrastructure improvements by increasing the road building and other communications services. This in itself will result in increased employment, nad wealth creation, but done correctly will increase the USA’s GDP per head. Merely by increasing efficiency, he will increase profits and so boost wealth creation.
Technological and scientific advances lead to wealth creation, along with lowly ideas on how to increase an individuals output. I was on a production line, and noted instantly, that the most efficient people, with the largest output, did the least movement, and appeared to be the ones doing the least work?
That was people with mundane jobs, no degrees, but making improvements in their own working environment, just like those first farmers, they applied the technology they had to hand, in the most efficient way possible.
As a result they will still be in employment next year, even if the price of imported pistachio nuts has risen, the price in Tesco will probably be unchanged, wealth creation at work.
WEALTH CREATION PT2
26th January 2017
How wealth creation came into being.
In part 2 I am developing the ideas from part 1.
A point to keep in mind is that those very first farmers, had no idea they had money. To them it would have been just a surplus product, there is no evidence they would have had any concept of money as we perceive it, merely they would have extra food with which to exchange goods or services.
With no real concept of money, there would be no word for it, nor to start with any ideas of worth.
In historical terms, farming is what predominantly marks out the Neolithic period, yes there are also improved designs to stone tools, but these also occur in the Mesolithic period, and are not in economic terms revolutionary, farming most definitely is.
You only have to look at Australia
Until this first farmer, any drought, or increase in population above what the land could support, led immediately to starvation. You only have to look at Australia, it was occupied for 30,000 years when the British first set up their colony at Botany Bay. Britain had been occupied continuously only since the last Ice age had ended, about 8,000 BC. The Australian Aborigine population was between 250,000 and 400,000, it was Palaeolithic or old stone age, and strictly hunter gatherer. The population in Britain was 14.1 million, and had already past the Agricultural stage and was into the Industrial era.
This highlights the difference, pre farming people starved when the food ran out, whether through a rise in population, or a shortage of food through a natural downturn ii the weather or perhaps even a disease in the staple food of the area in which a community lived.
Palaeolithic peoples didn’t even have domesticated animals, like cows, goats, sheep or the like, by the time of the Mesolithic period domestication had started, however, the animals were still dependent, like their human companions, on what the land could provide.
this leads to ownership
Farming changed everything. That it came into being is no real surprise, people lived so close to the land, it is easy for some bright spark to see that there were some areas that had better food supplies than others, the leap of imagination was realising that if one planted the grain, it grew.
The first farmer has found some suitable area of land, cleared the existing plants, and sowed his seed. He has tended his crops, and this leads to ownership, it also leads to wealth creation. After all, he is the one who has done the work. So along comes Ug who asks if he can help, and reap some of the rewards.
This immediately leads to challenging questions, is Ug given a share of the food, does Ug have his own piece of land, if not what is his relationship to the first farmer, is he a worker and paid or a slave and becomes part of the famer’s tools. Remember there is no word for money, no concept of money, and the idea of ownership may well have come into being, before these other concepts have words.
Indeed, it is money in the form of tokens, that dislocates commodity money from fiat currency. Once the idea of abstract value becomes grasped, then there is value of things. Until this point, people, products, services have no value, not because they are valueless, but because there is nothing that acts as an independent token with which to measure the value.
It is the independent token (=Money) being dislocated from actual services or goods, that makes money such a vital measure, so no money, means or equates to, no value.
he can give value to items or services
It is advancing technology that has given items and services value. Once the farmer has surplus product, he can give value to items or services he wishes to acquire.
Whilst the axe head maker was making ‘things’ of value. Those axe heads had no value, until there was the money there, with which to exchange a good or service.
This idea also has great consequences for modern Economies. During the ninth and tenth centuries in England, there was particularly in the reign of Eathelraed the Unready, a draining of fiat currency from England abroad, in the form of what was called the Danegeld. These were extortion payments made to the raiding ‘Vikings’ or ‘Danes’ in an attempt to keep the peace.
But here is a conundrum, while the last payment was so huge it took two years taxes to raise, this left the Vikings super rich. But had it made the people of England have any less value, no. OK they had less money and less disposable wealth, but all the knowledge and ability to create wealth through technology was still in place, so they were only poorer in what they could purchase with cash. If there was no famine, they were still as rich as the years before.
Note to confuse the issue there were a couple of famines, but this only meant the Danes or Vikings choose your own name, stayed away from the coast of England, until they had the spare food, so as to travel, and to raid the English again?
a modest three or four fold increase would bring astounding benefits
In the mean-time let us return to the idea of the first farmer. The result of just clearing an area of land, probably just unwooded land, and digging with perhaps an antler horn, or a sharpened length of wood, to plough a rough furrow, plant and weed the area would increase the crop yield anything between five and ten fold. Even a modest three or four fold increase would bring astounding benefits, however such a low figure is unlikely. Once you have proved that the idea works, the first thing would be to ensure you had enough for the next year plus some, and a natural eye to security would mean, that the maximum amount of land was cultivated, the amount of grain needed to grow from it would be kept.
In other words, the farmer’s own self-interest and that of his family or community would ensure there was excess food to that which was essential.
All the evidence of Mesolithic people in what is now eastern Europe, down turkey Iraq and out towards India, shows that the movement of tribes of hunter gatherers was not extensive, they tended to build a shelter and use it as a base for the surrounding area, only once the resources were used up di the tribe relocate, they would then return or do a circular tour, but all the time having a dwelling place to work from.
This is vital to understanding what happens next. Initially the extra food would be probably saved, a society that is forever on the brink of starvation could be expected to be cautious over how it used a resource.
Now comes the next step, at some point goods were exchanged, for what reason can only be guessed at, and the actual need is not important, it is the transaction that is. Perhaps the farmer needs an axe head, or some useful animal skin or extra spearheads.
thus increasing the amount of land he can farm
Wealth creation stems from both efficiency, the farmer realising, he can get cattle to pull the plough, thus increasing the amount of land he can farm, or technological advance, adding a wheel to the plough or indeed having two wheels on a cart and moving more goods, which is both a technological advance and efficiency gains.
Once you have a farmer, they are going to stop anyone from stealing their goods, this is a concept that is alien to hunter gatherers. Here language intervenes, and the concept of ownership, and with it land ownership, and with that comes the Laws relating to ownership.
With Laws come Lawyers, or at least people who understand the Law, or ensure the Law is enforced, this usually is some kind of rulers, whether head of the family, King, elected representative, or other person in charge. This has just increased the number of jobs.
But just stop a moment, let’s go over to the Economic correspondent of the ‘Neolithic Times’ and ask his opinion of the effect of farming.
Neolithic expert on Economics, “well in the future, now farming has arrived you will see hunters going out of business, as their jobs will no longer be needed, that will put the axe head makers and spear makers, out of work. In the future I see a lot of people with no work, and mass redundancies”
And if you think that sounds familiar, next time you see some person banging on about Robots taking our jobs, and making mass unemployment, ask who is paying this idiot. The Luddites, could not foresee you getting a flat tyre and calling out a breakdown company.
The future is bright the future is technologically driven, and wealth creation through efficiency will only increase.
9th February 2017
John Bercow MP and Speaker in the House of Commons, raised himself to the dizzying heights of dunderhead, plus half wit hypocrite, by unilaterally declaring President Trump Persona non grata, in the Palace of Westminster. Thus raising interest on social media, especially Twitter. The block on Trump came as a surprise to Lord Norman Fowler, speaker of the House of Lords, as he had not been consulted on the subject, which is the normal constitutional procedure on these occasions?
much like a performing dog on two legs
Indeed Bercow has made himself look foolish in the extreme. The first point is, the Speaker is supposedly apolitical, and traditionally remains neutral, so as to be above the politicking of the Commons. Another main point is that any comments about Foreign dignitaries visiting Westminster, especially with a view to speaking in Westminster Hall, is done after consulting with the Speaker of the House of Lords, in this instance, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Norman Fowler. Bercow got on his hind legs and spouted his gob off, much like a performing dog on two legs, in this case also doing the neat trick, of making himself look like a clown, from a down market Circus.
In the process the clown Bercow, has made Westminster, sound like a Circus.
Radio sounded better when it was the Wireless
The first Speaker of the House of Commons I knew about, was George Thomas, later ennobled to Lord Tonypandy. This was in the days when Parliament was only Broadcast on the Wireless, not Television. I found the Radio sounded better when it was the Wireless, I often caught Prime Minister’s Questions, while I was driving, certainly when Speaker Thomas called ‘Order, order’ one sat to attention, his voice had ‘Authority’.
From the beginning, dunderhead Bercow has had difficulties keeping the House in order, George Thomas had no such problems, he cut any disorder with a handful of well aimed words. The point being, one knew he could be deadly and he was not a person to be trifled. This made Speaker Thomas popular, he could easily have been unpopular, but George Thomas was consistent, so MPs knew their position, stay orderly and they would be fine. Step out of order and they would face the Speaker’s wrath, and he could devastate, indeed all Speakers can, they hold the keys to MPs being able to speak in the House, upset the Speaker and an MP has no voice in the House.
It is clear that dunderhead Bercow has never been able to convey that same authority. He has improved his performance in recent years, but even at his best Speaker Bercow, is a poor imitation of what a ‘good’ Speaker should be.
put himself in the dunderhead class
John Bercow has just put himself in the elite dunderhead class, and nailed some partisan political colours to the mast, he is the one out of order. Should he go, that is not a consideration of one miscalculation on his part, but it does cast a shadow on his ability to command enough respect, to stay longer than the nine years he has flagged, he would like to reside in the position of Speaker?
Bank of England Interest Rate
On the subject of dunderheads, Mark Carney at the Bank of England has, is placing himself in the running, as predicted, the BoE via the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) kept interest rates at 0.25%, utter madness. There is every opportunity by the Government to change savings and investment culture in UK, Bank deposits are too low.
Currently Sterling is languishing, a splendid situation for H.M. Treasury to signal to BoE that it is a good time to raise interest rates, as part of a wider strategy to increase savings in UK. This would have the effect of raising business investment, after all if people are saving, they want to see their hard earned do$h sweating hard, and where better, than being invested in hard working trade and commerce. Actually this is precisely what Macro Economic theory makes happen, hence why Japan after over 20 years of being in the doldrums of economic stagnation, still has high industrial output, high industrial investment, high employment and a trade surplus, supplying the Japanese Government with tax income to service the domestic budget deficit.
the Japanese were obsessed with savings
Japan has slow growth, but Japan still has a vibrant economy, purely because from the 1950s right through to the 1990s, the Japanese were obsessed with savings, as a consequence, industry has the borrowing capacity, because the Banks have the liquid assets to lend to new and old Industries. The Japanese people themselves have high liquid assets, unlike UK they do not have a high percentage of their wealth tied up in housing.
All UK Governments since 1945 have been on a spending spree, but worse, have encouraged the British people to do a Viv Nicholson and ‘Spend, Spend, Spend’.
The point of this succession of Government policies, has been to prop up high street spending, with a view to stopping the next recession, it clearly fails. Recessions still happen, but worse, it has meant the Balance of Trade has run a continual deficit since the 1980s, hence all the British companies flogged off cheap to Foreign concerns.
The BoE follows Government Policy, but it is disconcerting that the most Political Governor of my recollection, has no concerns over British Industry, and UK future investment. The Monetary Policy Committee has given no signs it would like to see higher savings by the UK populace, it should, if only to make H.M.Treasury consider the better alternative. On that moot point I suspect Mark Carney and the majority of the MPC, will disagree, that is their prerogative, but they will be wrong.
And as if to prove it, 8th February 2017, Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability, Member of the MPC, gave a speech in Birmingham on the subject of Business investment. The speech is available online here. Sir John Cunliffe speech But makes sad reading, because it is full of what amounts to platitudes and doesn’t address the core problem, savings with which to lend to Business.
UK doesn’t need platitudes, it needs higher commercial investment, to reduce imports, increase business efficiency, raise productivity, and so increase the number of jobs. Sod the so called next recession, it will happen soon enough, what is more important is, that British Industry is in a position to fight it with better tools, namely Efficiency and Productivity. That ensures a shorter recession, and higher job numbers when we come out of it.
nor alas in his remit
For this it needs higher savings and less consumer spending, H.M Treasury are the people to make this happen, but putting up interest rates so that people can get a return on their savings would be a start, will this happen? Not any time soon, and the Bank of England under Mark Carney won’t make it happen, it’s not in his Politics, nor in the mindset of the MPC, nor alas in Governor Carney’s remit, which is the most important point.
H.M Treasury is focused on #Brexit, and will not change savings policy, which is odd, considering, it is future investment, requiring a higher savings culture, that is part of what will make or break the outcomes of any #Brexit deal.
23rd February 2017
So HSBC shares take a big hit, while Lloyds posted better than expected results, Unilver shakes off a takeover attempt. UK plc continues onwards and upwards. Lloyds Bank Plc have put a final £1 billion in PPI repayments aside, topping them out, at over £17 billion in payments to the UK public. Also the bank has seen its profits soar £4.2 billion before tax. The annual report makes interesting reading.
OK interesting for those interested, Lloyds highlights include, lending £39 billion in mortgages, to UK homeowners. Plus £1.2 billion in lending to manufacturing, which is listed in their annual report separately, I take it that is they lent other monies to industry and commerce as well, even so this is down on 2015, which was £1.4 billion to manufacturing. This is not a criticism of Lloyds per se, but I’m noting that monies being saved by the British public, is not rising.
not good for UK Plc
It should be, but the impetus must come from H.M. Treasury, a bank can only reflect what the Government intends. Lloyds Bank motor finances roared ahead, which was good for Lloyds and Lloyds shareholders, but not good for UK Plc, which saw large imports of cars, and they are a retail good, just like batteries or toothpaste from a pound shop?
Although UK builds and exports more cars than it imports, those cars are not the expensive Mercs, Porsches, Beemers etc. One could buy five or more Honda Civics, for the price of certain German luxury cars. One of the problems here is the price of the Euro, which should be at least 20% higher than it is, to bring Germany inline with the Pound, in fact 30% wouldn’t be an unrealistic figure. But Germany via the Euro, exports its un-employment to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the so called PIGS countries, and the Euro continues so low, which gives Germany a competitive edge for exporting to the rest of the World, USA included. As a consequence it can also export its luxury cars to UK at knock down prices.
Lloyds Bank meanwhile has cut back its staffing levels, introduced more technology to help improve efficiency, and finally it is seeing the light at the end of the dark tunnel that is the PPI mis-selling scandal. The share price on the FTSE 100 however, was still shy of 70p at close of trade Wednesday 22nd Feb 2017, it had been trading just short of 74p last may. The price took a big hit on 24th June last, when the results of the #Brexit vote came through, but Lloyds has delivered a dividend increase. 1.7p is the final payment bringing the year’s total to 2.55p, thus making the future dividends look bright.
friendly Mexican drug barons
suitcases full of cash.
HSBC Bank Plc, weathered the 2007/08 credit crunch very well, and was not one of the banks that needed bailing out, neither was it hit very hard by the PPI mis-selling. It has though had its own scandal, wich has knocked its branding image, namely money laundering on a large scale. All those nice friendly Mexican drug barons who only murder when it suits them, not every day, needed to wash their money somewhere, and where better than the largest bank outside the USA. HSBC really should have cleared out its own Augean stables, in the form of Money Laundering, and it didn’t need some modern day Hercules to do so. Just good housekeeping and watching who walks through the doors with suitcases full of cash. HSBC being a bank, means it uses different language, poor branding, is called goodwill impairment, same result, it givees a bad image of the company.
Basically it thought it could get away with the Money laundering scam, well HSBC, you couldn’t and the authorities have caught up.
There is also the case of the missing Chinese customers, namely why has HSBC such low numbers for China. Its full title is ‘Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Bank Plc’. Having the word Bank twice is overkill but hey everyone refers to it as HSBC, so I suppose it doesn’t matter that much. So China is where it’s supposed to be strong. As far as I can make out, in China, it’s a tiddler in the Peoples Republic of that ilk. Fair enough it was based in Hong Kong, which was a British former colony, but that should have given it a head start when looking for new business in the whole of the former Middle Kingdom.
loans to industry and commerce
HSBC’s decision to keep its headquarters in London will have helped reduce its costs in the last year, because it is Sterling based, these have become more competitive with the fall of the pound post #Brexit. But its reduced overheads have still not been enough to keep its profits up. A helping hand from the UK Chancellor in the form of increasing interest rates, wouldn’t go amiss here. Plus from a UK Plc perspective, it gives the added bonus to all UK banks of increasing deposits so raising the number of loans to industry and commerce. This automatically gives all the banks a chance to increase their profits while boosting UK trade, even if fewer people buy expensive German cars and invest their do$h in UK businesses, via their Bank deposits.
Chancellor Hammond please note?
This blog was originally to be about Kraft Heinz takeover of Unilever Plc, and how it was not a good deal. The takeover fell through, so 500 words already written out of the window.
But Unilever was given a slight price boost, even after the takeover was aborted and it fell back, the price was higher. It also made me take a closer look, at Unilever as a company, and also the Directors of Unilever took a closer look, at why they were not bringing in the profits that this upstart behometh Heinz Kraft could manage. I hadn’t run the old slide rule over its performance in years, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that what I thought was a rickety juggernaut, turns out to be a fairly nifty giant, able to keep pace with some more fleet footed mid sized competitors, on growth, but needed to sharpen up its act on profits, it will only do that by being more efficient, and efficiency pays wages, as well as increased dividends, Unilever is looking like a long term buy proposition.
The FTSE 100 is still hovering around 7,300 with UK plc, bringing home the dividends. The FTSE 100 will fall at some point, but #Brexit still has not brought the tears that were foretold by the #Remain camp. Ex P.M. Tony Blair weighing in with his lies, hardly helps the #Remoaners, but gives the #Brexit camp something to laugh about, when he obviously falls flat.
the standard of debate was unusually high
We now just await the House of Lords decision, the standard of debate was unusually high, with many of the 191 Baronesses and Lordships who wished to speak, conceding that they must not block Article 50 bill and the will of the people, but make sure it is fit for purpose, to support in the best way the UK Citizens vote for the exit door from EU, going as smoothly as possible.
UK plc is onwards and upwards.