Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

No, it was you who mentioned passports.

Incorrect. You started on your east European 'I have good passport but wife have Thai passport' nonsense

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

What are you smoking? Or injecting?

No. I have good passport, not have bad passport. Before it bad passport. Now is good. Yes?

Your simple projection hasn't taken account of numerous factors, including one of the two most important

UK population boom could make it EU?s top economy - Telegraph

Germany is set to have a heck of a lot of pensioners and far fewer workers in future decades.

Originally Posted by Greenery

Your simple projection

Originally Posted by OhOh

UK 2014 GDP $2.64 trillion
German 2014 GDP $3.621 trillion
A 40 ish % difference to Germanys advantage

If we assume the UK continues to achieve the same % gain of 1% every 4 years, versus Germanys, it will take them approx 160 years for the UK to establish parity.

And yet you still cover your eyes and shout 'Rule Britannia' . . .

Tha fat lady has sung . . . and Jaguar is an INDIAN company

Did you read the link?

UK population boom could make it EU’s top economy

Britain could once again become the most powerful economic force in Europe, but only if we leave the immigration gates open

First the good, and somewhat surprising, news; according to new projections by the European Commission, Britain will be Europe’s biggest economy by some distance within 45 years, with France in second position and Germany pushed back into third place.

The postulated switch in positions is deemed likely in part because of Britain’s higher fertility rate – we have more babies per head of population than much of the rest of Europe.

In terms of demography, Britain is already a younger country than Germany

Yet the other half of the explanation is a more controversial one. In “The 2015 Ageing Report”, the commission assumes that net immigration into the UK will continue at current elevated levels for much of the period, adding a further 9m to the population by 2060.

There are two types of economic growth. Simply adding more people to the workforce will automatically increase national income, but is unlikely to help GDP per head very much.

Then there is the more rewarding kind of growth – that generated by innovation and productivity gain. This will increase income per head and add to living standards.

Unfortunately, the commission assumes rather more of the former than the latter.

Even so, these are startling projections, with profound implications, both for domestic policy and for the geopolitical make-up of Europe. If they are even halfway true, it is clear that neither Britain nor Europe are remotely prepared for what’s coming. In order to cope, the UK would have to invest massively in new housing, schools, hospitals and other public services.

The centre of gravity in Europe would also shift decisively away from Germany to Britain, transforming the UK’s position in the EU and her relationship with the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by Greenery

Did you read the link?

Your link suggests that there are unknowns as to which type of immigration will occur, to boost the available pool of workers. As we have seen over the past years the newly arrived will accept jobs at a smaller wage than the indigenous population.

As they are then judged to have insufficient funds to live on they can mostly apply for some benefits. This enhances the governments power of yet another group of "working" immigrants. More money for the fat cats. Votes for whoever dangles the largest carrots.

That of course along with "timed" releases of economic data, MSM emphasising the government agenda. ....

And the sheeple can't get their noses in quick enough.

What is not provided is the social infrastructure required for these newly arrived families. More transportation, more doctors surgeries, more schools, more.......

Originally Posted by Greenery

Britain will be Europe’s biggest economy by some distance within 45 years

45 years is the figure being suggested. When I was a kid I was promised flights to the moon, workers would have more leisure time as robots and energy cost would be too cheap to bill.

A politician planning on a 45 year times scale!!

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Greenery

Britain will be Europe’s biggest economy by some distance within 45 years

45 years is the figure being suggested. When I was a kid I was promised flights to the moon, workers would have more leisure time as robots and energy cost would be too cheap to bill.

A politician planning on a 45 year times scale!!

Read carefully and it says "biggest by some distance within 45 years". It will catch up a while before then.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Greenery

Did you read the link?

Your link suggests that there are unknowns as to which type of immigration will occur

What is not provided is the social infrastructure required for these newly arrived families. More transportation, more doctors surgeries, more schools, more.......

Yep, and building that infrastructure will further boost the economy.

There are plenty of predictions out there

UK to have Europe's biggest population: Migration will force us ahead of Germany, says UN | Daily Mail Online

Britain will overtake Germany as the country with the highest population in Europe, the United Nations predicted yesterday.

The gap of more than 20million people between this country and Germany will be closed by 2050, its analysts said.

By then Britain will also have outstripped France to be home to more people than any other EU nation.

Germany has been the most populous country in Europe since its establishment as a nation 139 years ago.

Britain's population growth comes because of immigration rates that mean this country is and will remain the third greatest destination for migrants in the world, the UN said.

A report by the UN Population Division said Germany's population, currently 82million, will fall to 71million by 2050. Britain's will rise from 61million to 72million, while France's population of 62million will grow to 68 million.

For God's sake . . .

Britain will slip down the global growth league over the next three decades as an ageing population and rapid growth in emerging markets helps Mexico and Nigeria to leapfrog the UK.
PwC predicts that Britain will slip out of the world's top ten largest economies by 2050, as China asserts its dominance and India's young population helps it to overtake the US as the world's second largest economy.

How the world will look in 2050 - Telegraph

Tell us again how Jaguar is a UK company . . . just to give you some credibility

You have expressed PwC's opinion multiple times PH. It may be right, it may be wrong.

What is definitely wrong is your opinion that Germany will be 5th in 2050. There is more to reading a graph than counting the number of names on it from left to right

Tell us again how Jaguar has Indian nationality PH.

Seems even the Indians understand

Supreme Court holds that a company's nationality is determined by its place of incorporation - Lexology

In TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v UE Development India Private Limited, Arbitration Application No. 2 of 2008, the Supreme Court of India held that a company's nationality is determined primarily by its place of incorporation, and is not affected by the company's "central management and control" being located outside India.

Tell us how Jaguar is a UK company when the parent company, i.e. the owners, are Indian.

Quote the rest of the article:

The case concerned TDM's application for the appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with UE. In dismissing this application, the Supreme Court held that both parties were of Indian nationality because they were both companies incorporated in India, despite the fact that TDM's Board of Directors is based in Malaysia from where its "central management and control" is exercised. The Supreme Court therefore held that the arbitration was a domestic arbitration, not an international commercial arbitration, which meant that under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the federal courts (rather than the Supreme Court) had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.

In terms of the potentially broader relevance of this ruling to India-related commercial transactions:

The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that, as a matter of Indian public policy, Indian nationals are not permitted to contract out of the application of Indian law. On a narrow interpretation, this merely re-affirms that Indian arbitration tribunals may not apply a foreign governing law to a contract in a dispute between two Indian parties. On a broader interpretation, however, this decision arguably represents authority that Indian public policy precludes Indian nationals (including wholly foreign owned Indian incorporated subsidiaries) from contracting out of Indian law unless they are contracting with a foreign party, even if any disputes under the relevant agreement will be resolved by arbitration outside of India.
Indian law (unlike, generally speaking, Chinese law – as to which, see here), however, recognises that two Indian companies may agree to arbitrate disputes outside of India. As is discussed further here, parties would be well advised (in light of the decision in the Venture Global Engineering case) to exclude the application of Part 1 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act in any such arbitration agreements.
Interestingly, and as is discussed here, many bilateral investment treaties to which India is a party do not stipulate that incorporation is the sole test by which a company's nationality is determined and instead contemplate that an Indian company controlled by foreign investors could be characterised as an investor under these treaties.

This judgment underscores the need for devising a well thought out strategy for structuring investments in India and emphasises the importance of careful drafting of arbitration agreements involving Indian parties.

I have given multiple reasons, including it being incorporated in the UK. The nationality of its shareholders doesn't change a company's nationality.

Your turn to tell us how Germany will be 5th in 2050 (clearly wrong to anyone who can read a graph) and how Jaguar has Indian nationality (no evidence other than your repeated opinion).

Originally Posted by panama hat

Tell us how Jaguar is a UK company when the parent company, i.e. the owners, are Indian.

Have you not read any of the previous posts?

Factories, design in UK. Salaries paid to UK workers. Corporate taxes paid to UK. If the owner is foreign, they get the dividends. So what?

Business community considers it as a win for a country to attract foreign investment. It shows country is seen as a good place for doing business, with right environment, stability, infrastructure and legal system.

Source: Financial Times
By Brian Groom, Business and Employment Editor July 20, 2014
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71996d0c-0...#axzz3ZA08mmbU

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71996d0c-0...#ixzz3ZA0hi7wZ

UK attracts record number of foreign investment projects

The UK has attracted the largest number of inward investment projects since records began in the 1980s, according to official data published on Sunday.

Annual investment figures for 2013-14 from UK Trade and Investment, the trade promotion agency, show the UK attracted 14 per cent more projects than in the previous year

This follows a survey by EY, the professional services firm, which found that Britain had extended its lead as Europe’s top destination for global investors.

The data confirmed that the UK has continued to recover from a post-recession dip, helped by cuts in corporation tax and measures such as the “patent box”, which allows for a lower tax rate on some intellectual property.

^ Jaguar is a legal entity, a company registered and operating in the UK. Its nationality hasn't changed just because its shares were bought by a different legal entity, an Indian company. That is obvious apart from to those who hate being wrong.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Tell us how Jaguar is a UK company when the parent company, i.e. the owners, are Indian.

This all is getting very boring. Some people citing unrelated threads about some passports with weird accents and some unable to read.

Jaguar Land Rover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jaguar Land Rover Automotive is a public limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (Company No. 06477691). The immediate parent undertaking of Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC is TML Singapore Pte Limited and the ultimate parent undertaking and controlling party is Tata Motors Limited of India.[25] The Chairman of Tata Group, Ratan Tata, was the Chairman and a director of Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC from 2008 to December 2012.

Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC's principal active subsidiaries are:[26]
Jaguar Land Rover Holdings Limited
Jaguar Land Rover Limited (designs, manufactures and sells Jaguar Cars and Land Rover vehicles)

In March 2011, Jaguar Land Rover announced that it would be hiring an additional 1,500 staff at its Halewood plant, and signed over £2 billion of supply contracts with UK-based companies, to enable production of its new Range Rover Evoque model.[10][11] In September 2011, the company confirmed that it would be investing £355 million in the construction of a new engine plant at the i54 business park near Wolverhampton, central England, to manufacture a family of four-cylinder petrol and diesel engines.[12][13] In November 2011 Jaguar Land Rover announced that it would be creating 1,000 new jobs at its Solihull plant, a 25 per cent increase in the size of the workforce at the site.[14][15]

In March 2012, Jaguar Land Rover announced the creation of 1,000 new jobs at its Halewood plant, and a shift to 24-hour production at the plant.[16][17] In the same month, Jaguar Land Rover and the China-based carmaker Chery agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility, the creation of a new automobile marque, and sales of vehicles produced by the company.[18][19] Jaguar Land Rover plans to create 4,500 manufacturing and engineering jobs in the UK over the next five years.[20]

In September 2013, Jaguar Land Rover announced an additional 1,700 jobs and £1.5 billion investment at its facility in Solihull. The money will be spent on designing systems to allow the chassis of future models to be made out of aluminium. The first of these models will be a new mid-sized sports saloon car to be introduced in 2015.[21]

In September 2013 Jaguar Land Rover announced plans to establish a new research and development center in the UK.[22] The National Automotive Innovation Campus will be based at the University of Warwick. Jaguar Land Rover will invest £50 million in the facility with additional funding from Tata Motors, the University and the UK government.[23]

In January, 2014 the Wall Street Journal reported that Jaguar Land Rover, sold a record 425,006 vehicles in 2013 as demand for its luxury vehicles increased in all major markets including in China, North America and Europe.[24]

Ohoh, Take that just a single example of UK's competitiveness vs. euroland

And the future?

Source: The Journal 2 March 2015 By Tom Keighley
Breakup of the Eurozone could boost British competitiveness, top economist says - The Journal

Breakup of the Eurozone could boost British competitiveness, top economist says

The break-up of the Eurozone could provide a major boost to European and British competitiveness, one of the country’s top economists has told North East business leaders.

Roger Bootle - one of the so called “wise men” panel of advisors under Kenneth Clarke in the 1990s - presented his take on the world economy to business guests of Deloitte.

Speaking to The Journal before the event, Mr Bootle said he was confident that current turmoil in the Eurozone did not pose a major immediate risk to Britain’s recovery, and that its break-up would be best for competitiveness.

On the Euro, he said: “It’s a basket case, and I’ve thought that all along. It can’t and shouldn’t last, but like a lot of things that can’t and shouldn’t last, it might take a long time for it to disappear. It looks very much like Greece will be out before too much longer, and that will raise new questions. I think there’s unlikely to be much financial contagion afterwards to the likes of Italy, Spain and Portugal partly because of the measures the European Central Bank has put in place.

“At the time it will be portrayed as a disaster and those countries will think ‘I don’t want to be like that’. The real question of contagion will come afterwards, when we begin to look at whether it works. If it looks like working, the Eurozone is finished. If Italy, Spain and Portugal see that Greece is working outside of it, they’ll soon follow. Of course, there’s a chance the Greeks might make a mess of it.

“The direct links between Greece and the UK are very small — trade links are minimal and our banks don’t have that much exposure to Greece. However, the Eurozone is our single biggest export market so we have invested a lot in its success. Whatever it takes to make the Eurozone strong — that’s where our interests are. It’s my view that to get strength we need a break-up of the Euro. That wouldn’t be the mood among markets and businesses though. Initially there would be panic.”

Paul Feechan, senior partner for Deloitte in the North East, said that many of his firm’s clients have interests across the world, and the Eurozone was just one destination of exports.

On the question of EU referendum, Mr Bootle said it could have the potential to disrupt the UK recovery, although it was unlikely.

He used business investment statistics from the period surrounding the Scottish referendum to show investment was curtailed as a result, and suggested an EU referendum could have a similar effect.

His comments follow a poll this week which found 45% of Britons would vote to keep Britain in the EU should a referendum occur.

Looking at businesses public statements on the EU position, Mr Bootle added: “I think it’s interesting when businesspeople make statements of the sort on the Euro and the EU. I consider those comments but I don’t tend to give them much weight. Sometimes such comments are more received wisdom, and haven’t been thought about very deeply.

“Talking about the importance to British business of being part of the EU, I think, often amounts to this ill-defined cri de coeur that ‘we do an awful lot of business with Europe’.”

On the current debate about devolution of power to the North East, Mr Bootle was reluctant to endorse plans outlined by the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, on his recent visit to the region which included greater powers for the Local Enterprise Partnerships.

He added: “The North East may think it’s different from other regions, but I’m sorry, it’s not. You have a higher dependency on the public sector and manufacturing, and you have lower house prices. The most important thing affecting the interests of the North East is going to be how well the UK does — by far. The continued squeeze on the public sector in the next parliament could pose a risk to the region because it’s so heavily exposed.

“There are concerns out there — namely that the further you are away from Whitehall, the worse your decisions will be. However, the proliferation of local bureaucracy worries me — the layers and layers that use up quite a lot of money and achieve very little.”


'