Will Brexit have an impact on F1?

[CBeck113]

European immigrants to Britain cost the taxpayer £3 million a day last year, according to a new analysis.

MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher border controls, said the overall cost of immigration from Europe – including recent arrivals and those who have lived here many decades - was £1.2 billion last year.

The sum was calculated by deducting the cost of benefits and public services, such as the NHS, which were consumed by migrants from the amount of money they contributed to the Exchequer through tax.

In another important finding, the new research said immigrants who have arrived since 2001 – including hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the eastern European countries which joined the EU from 2004 – had been “cost neutral” to Britain.

Those coming here in the last 15 years contributed as much to the economy as they took out in welfare payments and public services, according to MigrationWatch’s calculations.

Within that group eastern European migrants cost the Exchequer £2.8 billion in 2014-15 but this deficit was cancelled out by a £2.8 billion surplus generated by migrants from other European countries such as France and Spain.

[...]

Don't mind me. I'm just an American who's tickled to see other countries struggle with the same bullshit problems. Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones.

Because in the inevitable film adaption they'll be played by American actors with poor British accents?

I rather enjoyed Kevin Costner's turn as Robin Hood. I'm not even joking.

This is the same as what Andres wrote above - the problem in the States is the illegal Mexican immigrants, who are solely there for economic reasons. The Syrians have been driven out of their country by the US and Russia (primarily, numerous others such as the EU were also involved) fighting for control of the government there, which was really triggered by one of the current US presidential candidates, and it wasn't Trump. And yet the US cries about assuming responsibility for the affects of their war, how .... expected and to character [Disclaimer: for those who don't know, I am American, so lay your pitchforks and torches back down].

These refugees get money from the government, and it seems some people here think they eat it and don't have to buy food, clothing, household items etc. to survive, which is simply assinine - the money is mostly distributed locally, where the refugees are being housed. This money goes right into the pockets of local business owners, who tend to employee local residents - what a revelation! If the do send money home, then it will be used to get the rest of their families back with them. Look at it as a an economical stimulations program, being directly pumped into local economies, instead of through large companies, who would actually keep a larger cut than the refugees.

Brexit only proved how many people let their opinions be given to them through the media, mainly Facebook & co., and should be rubbed into every Brits' face as a sign of their ignorance, and the Americans' as a warning of what can happen - because you just can't wipe away a president elected by the people.

[Jolle]

It's interesting to hear some non uk perspectives on Brexit. In many cases you seem better informed than my fellow countrymen, or at least more detached.

I have been following the trail for understanding of the result and, taking my prejudices into account, my impression is that there were sufficient people who just wanted change.

This is fully consistent with our general notions of government and democracy. We have a form of elected dictatorship. The Conservative party rules for a while until sufficient of the populace feel it's time for a change and then the Labour Party get their turn. To make the decision straightforward the parties try not to agree on anything. Consensus is a dirty word used only by wishy washy liberals. We had a chance to change this 5 years ago and voted, strangely, for the status quo. My prejudice says this is rooted in our antagonistic legal system.

So the British populace is familiar with making their feelings known in a binary manner. In this case we had a vote against the status quo. What many people expect is that the things they would like to be changed will be changed and things will get better, maybe not now, but probably we'll see some improvements by the end of the year.

There's a possibility we're going to be disappointed.

The same is true of F1. Change has been mandated. Next year things will be "better". Whatever people felt needed to change that's what they will expect. Some, maybe quite a few, will be disappointed. Watch out for people saying " boo hoo they're still lifting and coasting".

I'm living in The Netherlands with a English wife, so, a foot in both countries. We have our news mostly trough British channels (BBC, iTV, CH4 and the newspapers from the online tabloids up to the Guardian). But next to it we have Dutch and German news. The biggest problem we have spotted is that on the whole Brexit press, at least on the telly, there was a spastic "we must be in favour for both sides" to me impartial. Therefore the Leave camp got away with the half-backed promises about immigrants and NHS money without anybody really questioning them. Next to this, when you were listening to real experts who explained in quite detail of what was going to happen (de devaluation of the pound, bank losses, jobs going to mainland Europe) the presenters after that had to make a statement "oh well, the leave campaign said it's going to be ok. For us, looking from the side, it felt like all intelligence was drained out of the press.

[CBeck113]

Two further points to my post above:

1. I'm happy about the devaluation of the Pound, I'll be in England and Scotland in August, and the vacation will now cost me alot less (I tend to be very good to the local economies when on vacation)
2. What the government is doing with the refugees is exactly the same as what happens when they "buy" a formula 1 race: they hope to inject money into the local economy, but with the race only the rich tend to really profit from this short-term event, whereas teh refugees are more long-term

[Jolle]

Two further points to my post above:

1. I'm happy about the devaluation of the Pound, I'll be in England and Scotland in August, and the vacation will now cost me alot less (I tend to be very good to the local economies when on vacation)
2. What the government is doing with the refugees is exactly the same as what happens when they "buy" a formula 1 race: they hope to inject money into the local economy, but with the race only the rich tend to really profit from this short-term event, whereas teh refugees are more long-term

I'm expecting a small uproar when Apple have to make the iPhone a 100 pounds more expensive

By the way, history have shown that refugees most of the time, just like the locals, will integrate quite quickly and add to the economy in the long term.

[Phil]

Andres:
It doesn't matter [to the discussion] how you class them. Effectively we are talking about the millions of people coming into the EU as refugees. If they can be classed refugees from a legal stand point, depends on where they are coming and what they are fleeing from. Example: A person fleeing from a warzone is a refugee. A person fleeing from a poor(er) country and enters another one in search for better opportunity is an (economic) immigrant. Different rules apply, in how long they can stay, under which conditions, if they can work, receive social care etc.

The distinction is not always easy, especially when you effectively have no border control and people just flood into your country or the EU effectively 'paper-less'. Fact is; once these people enter your border, regardless if 'illegal' or not, there is an obligation to help them (under the Geneva convention).

The point I was making, is however you want to class these people from a legal point of view, is that they are here without jobs (they are not allowed to work anyway, at least most countries as they are classed as refugees and shall receive refuge for a limited time). If they can (=could) work is another matter, one that is unlikely given the sheer numbers of them, the fact that they don't speak your language and possibly also educational barriers. Many of these people are not well educated (enough) to compete on a highly competitive job market, especially not within the EU where we already have the free movement directive and in some countries, minimum-wages that set a high threshold for anyone looking for a job. This has nothing to do if these people are intelligent or not, but how employable they are within the market. Here in Switzerland, many refugees who stay on and become immigrants, still have no jobs and prospect of being employed. They cost money as they live off social care. It's doable, if it's a small quantity that does it, but the system no longer works when too many people fall into this.

The economy is complicated. Creating jobs is not free, it costs money. One way or another, having millions of unemployed people is always going to be a problem, irregardless where they are from. People need a purpose in life. One of the problems will be figuring out if they can stay and if you want to invest in them (invest in integration and education) in the hope they will be capable of being integrated into the market one day. If not, and we're only looking at a limited refuge, how long will that be? How much will it cost? How well are the people going to be, just "living" without much purpose? And will they leave once it is safe to go back? Will they want to? Will you be able to actually send them back?

The amount of people flooding into the EU is unprecedented. The notion that these people, after having walked thousands of kilometers to reach the EU borders and into Germany, will want to go back, once (if) Syria becomes a safe place again, is doubtful. Their country is in ruins and will be for a very long time. Even if the state starts to send them back, the deportation process is very costly and complicated. You can't just drive them to the border and wink farewell. The easiest is if they leave entirely on their free will, however if they don't, it's a more complicated matter. You need the cooperation of the country they are being sent back to take them back and even then, it's a very costly matter. In practice, the success rate is quite low. And the best thing is; even if they stay on, they still get to receive support from the state. We have cases here of 'illegal immigrants and refugees" that are still here after years and still receive money and many failed attempts of deportation. Bureaucracy at its best.

And Fox, if we should just leave them to it? Depends what precedent you want to set. It's somewhat logical that the system, our social care, everything that we've built up and worked for no longer works when such a large scale immigration happens. And what's next? Whole of Africa too? There are millions of people hungering there, but no one cares because only the fewest actually make it onto ships in an attempt to cross the sea. I've always maintained that help is required and absolutely necessary, but the solution is not taking them all in and worrying about the problems this may cause later.

These refugees get money from the government, and it seems some people here think they eat it and don't have to buy food, clothing, household items etc. to survive, which is simply assinine - the money is mostly distributed locally, where the refugees are being housed. This money goes right into the pockets of local business owners, who tend to employee local residents - what a revelation! If the do send money home, then it will be used to get the rest of their families back with them. Look at it as a an economical stimulations program, being directly pumped into local economies, instead of through large companies, who would actually keep a larger cut than the refugees.

So this money from the government... where does that come from? I'll give you a hint; No the government doesn't have a tree growing money. Simply printing "more money" doesn't help either. Where does it come from? What about the cost for housing (that may have to be built) in order to put a roof over their head? Or are these hundredths of thousands of buildings just standing empty somewhere? Are you also aware of the depth most countries are in? What that means?



Also on the topic of Brexit and Sauber (being located in Switzerland):

One this is the current reduced valuation of the British Pound, as well as the EURO. In the short term, this could well help Sauber, who are using the Swiss Frank as the only team right now.

Apparently, the SNB (Swiss National Bank) intervened by buying Euros on the market to maintain an EUR <-> CHF exchange of at least 1.065 - 1.08. This after the Euro dropped quite a bit and the Swiss franc gaining strength last year when the exchange rate was closer to 1:1 (after years of it being 1.25 - 1.5 CHF for 1 EUR). Given Switzerland relies a lot on exports and tourism, it's crucial not to have a too strong Swiss Franc. Sauber is a bit inbetween; As we know, the payment to teams are payed in USD (where the strong Swiss Franc has hurt also), but at the same time, a strong Swiss Franc helps when paying for overseas goods. All in all, I think Brexit and an even stronger Swiss Franc hurts Sauber more than it gains them, which was pretty much the story 2 years ago when the Swiss Franc started to gain strength.

[Jolle]

Andres:
It doesn't matter [to the discussion] how you class them. Effectively we are talking about the millions of people coming into the EU as refugees. If they can be classed refugees from a legal stand point, depends on where they are coming and what they are fleeing from. Example: A person fleeing from a warzone is a refugee. A person fleeing from a poor(er) country and enters another one in search for better opportunity is an (economic) immigrant. Different rules apply, in how long they can stay, under which conditions, if they can work, receive social care etc.

The distinction is not always easy, especially when you effectively have no border control and people just flood into your country or the EU effectively 'paper-less'. Fact is; once these people enter your border, regardless if 'illegal' or not, there is an obligation to help them (under the Geneva convention).

The point I was making, is however you want to class these people from a legal point of view, is that they are here without jobs (they are not allowed to work anyway, at least most countries as they are classed as refugees and shall receive refuge for a limited time). If they can (=could) work is another matter, one that is unlikely given the sheer numbers of them, the fact that they don't speak your language and possibly also educational barriers. Many of these people are not well educated (enough) to compete on a highly competitive job market, especially not within the EU where we already have the free movement directive and in some countries, minimum-wages that set a high threshold for anyone looking for a job. This has nothing to do if these people are intelligent or not, but how employable they are within the market. Here in Switzerland, many refugees who stay on and become immigrants, still have no jobs and prospect of being employed. They cost money as they live off social care. It's doable, if it's a small quantity that does it, but the system no longer works when too many people fall into this.

The economy is complicated. Creating jobs is not free, it costs money. One way or another, having millions of unemployed people is always going to be a problem, irregardless where they are from. People need a purpose in life. One of the problems will be figuring out if they can stay and if you want to invest in them (invest in integration and education) in the hope they will be capable of being integrated into the market one day. If not, and we're only looking at a limited refuge, how long will that be? How much will it cost? How well are the people going to be, just "living" without much purpose? And will they leave once it is safe to go back? Will they want to? Will you be able to actually send them back?

The amount of people flooding into the EU is unprecedented. The notion that these people, after having walked thousands of kilometers to reach the EU borders and into Germany, will want to go back, once (if) Syria becomes a safe place again, is doubtful. Their country is in ruins and will be for a very long time. Even if the state starts to send them back, the deportation process is very costly and complicated. You can't just drive them to the border and wink farewell. The easiest is if they leave entirely on their free will, however if they don't, it's a more complicated matter. You need the cooperation of the country they are being sent back to take them back and even then, it's a very costly matter. In practice, the success rate is quite low. And the best thing is; even if they stay on, they still get to receive support from the state. We have cases here of 'illegal immigrants and refugees" that are still here after years and still receive money and many failed attempts of deportation. Bureaucracy at its best.

And Fox, if we should just leave them to it? Depends what precedent you want to set. It's somewhat logical that the system, our social care, everything that we've built up and worked for no longer works when such a large scale immigration happens. And what's next? Whole of Africa too? There are millions of people hungering there, but no one cares because only the fewest actually make it onto ships in an attempt to cross the sea. I've always maintained that help is required and absolutely necessary, but the solution is not taking them all in and worrying about the problems this may cause later.

These refugees get money from the government, and it seems some people here think they eat it and don't have to buy food, clothing, household items etc. to survive, which is simply assinine - the money is mostly distributed locally, where the refugees are being housed. This money goes right into the pockets of local business owners, who tend to employee local residents - what a revelation! If the do send money home, then it will be used to get the rest of their families back with them. Look at it as a an economical stimulations program, being directly pumped into local economies, instead of through large companies, who would actually keep a larger cut than the refugees.

So this money from the government... where does that come from? I'll give you a hint; No the government doesn't have a tree growing money. Simply printing "more money" doesn't help either. Where does it come from? What about the cost for housing (that may have to be built) in order to put a roof over their head? Or are these hundredths of thousands of buildings just standing empty somewhere? Are you also aware of the depth most countries are in? What that means?



Also on the topic of Brexit and Sauber (being located in Switzerland):

One this is the current reduced valuation of the British Pound, as well as the EURO. In the short term, this could well help Sauber, who are using the Swiss Frank as the only team right now.

Apparently, the SNB (Swiss National Bank) intervened by buying Euros on the market to maintain an EUR <-> CHF exchange of at least 1.065 - 1.08. This after the Euro dropped quite a bit and the Swiss franc gaining strength last year when the exchange rate was closer to 1:1 (after years of it being 1.25 - 1.5 CHF for 1 EUR). Given Switzerland relies a lot on exports and tourism, it's crucial not to have a too strong Swiss Franc. Sauber is a bit inbetween; As we know, the payment to teams are payed in USD (where the strong Swiss Franc has hurt also), but at the same time, a strong Swiss Franc helps when paying for overseas goods. All in all, I think Brexit and an even stronger Swiss Franc hurts Sauber more than it gains them, which was pretty much the story 2 years ago when the Swiss Franc started to gain strength.

The whole "they cost money" and "the government can't print money" is absolutely rubbish and are the rhetoric from parties like LePen, Farage and Wilders.

I did multiple studies (I work in that sector) about local economy and how immigrants (the step after you'll get your status), work projects, investments work on the greater and local economy and building projects around that.

A economy is mostly a closed system. The big "leaks" of the system are more in the financial sector then at people getting welfare. 98% of all expenses comes back in taxes. A economy is how fast the money goes round, not how much money is in the system, therefore the more money is spend wisely (for instance giving it to people who spend it to people who spend it to people who spend it to people who spend it (with a bit of tax between all the steps). In the short term immigrants/refugees are an boost to the (local) economy, they tend to spend the money! Midterm you have to do some education and create a attractive surroundings for companies to invest (to be able te employ these people). In the long term you have to make sure that their children (second generation) have the same opportunities as their non-immigrant neighbours. Welfare and the strain on the system is a drop in the ocean. Really. There are no numbers that suggest "they take all our jobs" or "their welfare will ruin the country". No. Every country who had immigration since the second world war, and Holland and England had quite a lot because of their colonial history, has been good for the economy. It was like that before the EU, during the EU and it will be like that after the EU.
Even the US will collapse without the migrants from Mexico. They not only add billions to the US economy, they are responsible for 30% of the work load in agriculture.

[CBeck113]

Nice post Jolle - I'd upvote you if I could.

[henry]

It's interesting to hear some non uk perspectives on Brexit. In many cases you seem better informed than my fellow countrymen, or at least more detached.

I have been following the trail for understanding of the result and, taking my prejudices into account, my impression is that there were sufficient people who just wanted change.

This is fully consistent with our general notions of government and democracy. We have a form of elected dictatorship. The Conservative party rules for a while until sufficient of the populace feel it's time for a change and then the Labour Party get their turn. To make the decision straightforward the parties try not to agree on anything. Consensus is a dirty word used only by wishy washy liberals. We had a chance to change this 5 years ago and voted, strangely, for the status quo. My prejudice says this is rooted in our antagonistic legal system.

So the British populace is familiar with making their feelings known in a binary manner. In this case we had a vote against the status quo. What many people expect is that the things they would like to be changed will be changed and things will get better, maybe not now, but probably we'll see some improvements by the end of the year.

There's a possibility we're going to be disappointed.

The same is true of F1. Change has been mandated. Next year things will be "better". Whatever people felt needed to change that's what they will expect. Some, maybe quite a few, will be disappointed. Watch out for people saying " boo hoo they're still lifting and coasting".

I'm living in The Netherlands with a English wife, so, a foot in both countries. We have our news mostly trough British channels (BBC, iTV, CH4 and the newspapers from the online tabloids up to the Guardian). But next to it we have Dutch and German news. The biggest problem we have spotted is that on the whole Brexit press, at least on the telly, there was a spastic "we must be in favour for both sides" to me impartial. Therefore the Leave camp got away with the half-backed promises about immigrants and NHS money without anybody really questioning them. Next to this, when you were listening to real experts who explained in quite detail of what was going to happen (de devaluation of the pound, bank losses, jobs going to mainland Europe) the presenters after that had to make a statement "oh well, the leave campaign said it's going to be ok. For us, looking from the side, it felt like all intelligence was drained out of the press.

You make a very good point. The way the news media try to provide both sides of the argument all the time is a very real issue. When a guy faked results to link the MMR vaccine to autism the British press fell over themselves to find one person on the "link" side and gave them equal voice to the hundreds of experts who had proof he was wrong. Result, less immunisation and a few years later infection outbreaks.

IMHO This is another aspect of the British depency on antagonism in our legal system, politics, news media, in fact everywhere, even our soap operas. Facts, reason and truth are incidental to the important business of winning the argument.

Further issues are our distrust of intellect and the general pride our elites take in being innumerate and unscientific. Michael Gove, on the leave side, famously said in a " debate" , " I think we've had enough of experts haven't we".

To be honest I don't know how different things are elsewhere.

[Jolle]

It's interesting to hear some non uk perspectives on Brexit. In many cases you seem better informed than my fellow countrymen, or at least more detached.

I have been following the trail for understanding of the result and, taking my prejudices into account, my impression is that there were sufficient people who just wanted change.

This is fully consistent with our general notions of government and democracy. We have a form of elected dictatorship. The Conservative party rules for a while until sufficient of the populace feel it's time for a change and then the Labour Party get their turn. To make the decision straightforward the parties try not to agree on anything. Consensus is a dirty word used only by wishy washy liberals. We had a chance to change this 5 years ago and voted, strangely, for the status quo. My prejudice says this is rooted in our antagonistic legal system.

So the British populace is familiar with making their feelings known in a binary manner. In this case we had a vote against the status quo. What many people expect is that the things they would like to be changed will be changed and things will get better, maybe not now, but probably we'll see some improvements by the end of the year.

There's a possibility we're going to be disappointed.

The same is true of F1. Change has been mandated. Next year things will be "better". Whatever people felt needed to change that's what they will expect. Some, maybe quite a few, will be disappointed. Watch out for people saying " boo hoo they're still lifting and coasting".

I'm living in The Netherlands with a English wife, so, a foot in both countries. We have our news mostly trough British channels (BBC, iTV, CH4 and the newspapers from the online tabloids up to the Guardian). But next to it we have Dutch and German news. The biggest problem we have spotted is that on the whole Brexit press, at least on the telly, there was a spastic "we must be in favour for both sides" to me impartial. Therefore the Leave camp got away with the half-backed promises about immigrants and NHS money without anybody really questioning them. Next to this, when you were listening to real experts who explained in quite detail of what was going to happen (de devaluation of the pound, bank losses, jobs going to mainland Europe) the presenters after that had to make a statement "oh well, the leave campaign said it's going to be ok. For us, looking from the side, it felt like all intelligence was drained out of the press.

You make a very good point. The way the news media try to provide both sides of the argument all the time is a very real issue. When a guy faked results to link the MMR vaccine to autism the British press fell over themselves to find one person on the "link" side and gave them equal voice to the hundreds of experts who had proof he was wrong. Result, less immunisation and a few years later infection outbreaks.

IMHO This is another aspect of the British depency on antagonism in our legal system, politics, news media, in fact everywhere, even our soap operas. Facts, reason and truth are incidental to the important business of winning the argument.

Further issues are our distrust of intellect and the general pride our elites take in being innumerate and unscientific. Michael Gove, on the leave side, famously said in a " debate" , " I think we've had enough of experts haven't we".

To be honest I don't know how different things are elsewhere.

A guy who states "I have enough of experts" in a political debate shouldn't be allowed on telly in anything serious. The Conservative party should, just like the Republicans in the US, ask themselves, if they want to be represented and lead by people who ignore people like Carney.

[Phil]

The whole "they cost money" and "the government can't print money" is absolutely rubbish and are the rhetoric from parties like LePen, Farage and Wilders.

I'm assuming this wasn't directed at me then, because I never said the government can't print money - my point was - and as someone who works in that sector I'm sure you understand this - that doing so bears a cost. Who bears this cost in the end?

The quote I specifically replied to by CBeck113 sounded as if one believes that the money the government gives out to support refugees is free money. This is absolutely not the case. Just as is creating jobs. It's not free. That money comes from somewhere. It always does.

Also, we're not talking about controlled 'immigration' here.

[Jolle]

The whole "they cost money" and "the government can't print money" is absolutely rubbish and are the rhetoric from parties like LePen, Farage and Wilders.

I'm assuming this wasn't directed at me then, because I never said the government can't print money - my point was - and as someone who works in that sector I'm sure you understand this - that doing so bears a cost. Who bears this cost in the end?

The quote I specifically replied to by CBeck113 sounded as if one believes that the money the government gives out to support refugees is free money. This is absolutely not the case. Just as is creating jobs. It's not free. That money comes from somewhere. It always does.

Also, we're not talking about controlled 'immigration' here.

I think most people try to simplify an economic system by comparing it with a checks and balances system from a company or at home. It's a far more complex closed loop with actions and reactions that don't make directly sense. To simplify it: yes the money comes from nowhere, or even better. It's a boomerang.

A example of this is the banking crisis. In a few days our complete GDP was fed through the system, even most of the politicians didn't understand it. This morning Carney pushed 150 billion like that. No uproar. Not even a whisper.

Society works a bit the same. To feed money through the system, it gets healthy again and self sustaining.

[CBeck113]

The whole "they cost money" and "the government can't print money" is absolutely rubbish and are the rhetoric from parties like LePen, Farage and Wilders.

I'm assuming this wasn't directed at me then, because I never said the government can't print money - my point was - and as someone who works in that sector I'm sure you understand this - that doing so bears a cost. Who bears this cost in the end?

The quote I specifically replied to by CBeck113 sounded as if one believes that the money the government gives out to support refugees is free money. This is absolutely not the case. Just as is creating jobs. It's not free. That money comes from somewhere. It always does.

One does not believe that money grows on trees or is laying around waiting to be spent, at least this one doesn't. BUT, seeing a good investment for the local economies of your country is something worth investing in, which is why the money should be made available. It needs to be circulated, otherwise you have a stagnant economy, and since the economy is measured on monetary movement, or turnover, and not profit (the way most individuals think, aka what does my bank account look like this week?), it can only help. Yes, it isn't an investment with 100%+ payback, but in the longterm Britian's economy needs a low-level boost, and this is the gift horse.
Since most areas don't have the infrastructure to support all these refugees, infrastructure must be created - housing, schools, shopping areas etc...this forces spending, which forces economical growth. Local contractors get new projects, hire local workers to fulfill them, buiy the materials from local dealers etc... Most arguments end up being "I don't want those people in my neighborhood", since almost all others can be denounced with facts.

Also, we're not talking about controlled 'immigration' here.

Correct, we're talking about people runing away from everything they own to save their lives, an even better reason to help them, because we cause their problems (OK, you being Swiss didn't, you only let the filthy rich immigrate anyway ).

[Phil]

Since most areas don't have the infrastructure to support all these refugees, infrastructure must be created - housing, schools, shopping areas etc...this forces spending, which forces economical growth. Local contractors get new projects, hire local workers to fulfill them, buiy the materials from local dealers etc...

Again, this money that the government uses to feed the ecosystem you're describing - building houses, schools, shopping areas etc etc - does need to come from somewhere. Where does the money come from? Is that money limitless? Aka, no budget?

Also - are these millions of people employable? At what cost for integration and education? And when?

Maybe we should all just stay home and not work. From what it sounds like the government can give us free money that we can spend on shopping, giving people who spend money, who spend money, who spend money........... oh wait, no that doesn't add up, does it?

[Jolle]

Since most areas don't have the infrastructure to support all these refugees, infrastructure must be created - housing, schools, shopping areas etc...this forces spending, which forces economical growth. Local contractors get new projects, hire local workers to fulfill them, buiy the materials from local dealers etc...

Again, this money that the government uses to feed the ecosystem you're describing - building houses, schools, shopping areas etc etc - does need to come from somewhere. Where does the money come from? Is that money limitless? Aka, no budget?

Also - are these millions of people employable? At what cost for integration and education? And when?

Maybe we should all just stay home and not work. From what it sounds like the government can give us free money that we can spend on shopping, giving people who spend money, who spend money, who spend money........... oh wait, no that doesn't add up, does it?

Again, please, the economy is not like you're bank account, far from it. Its a closed loop. Money doesn't come from anywhere because it stays there.

If you're so worried and not able to understand the system, please be angry about Carney who gave 150 billion pounds to the banks this morning, after last week 250 billion and imagine how many people you could help with that.

[turbof1]

I think most people try to simplify an economic system by comparing it with a checks and balances system from a company or at home. It's a far more complex closed loop with actions and reactions that don't make directly sense. To simplify it: yes the money comes from nowhere, or even better. It's a boomerang.

I once had a teacher who said a very wise sentence (I am for the record an economist myself): economy is for the largest part psychology. Consumer trust, investor trust, etc. that's what ultimately drives an economy. And that's ultimately also what makes it that complex: it's frightening for an economist to know he has all sort of mathematic functions and models that can predict future economic growth, but ultimately things can make swing for better or worse due unlogical decisions, which lead to further unlogical decisions.

It's the exact same reason why they teach you psychology and sociology in most first year economic bachelor courses.