This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.
It's far from clear that UK leaving EU is any kind of disaster.
I'm not from the UK but am in the EU, and I was hoping the Remain side would win the referendum. But I don't see UK leaving as a disaster, either, and after the referendum, the overblown hysteria related to Brexit has led me to see that in fact it maybe is a very wise thing to do for Brits and maybe we should follow. EU leaders and pundits seem so disconnected from reality: if this is an ultimate disaster, they are too deep gazing their own navels.
I'm aware DWN is disliked by many. But an ad hominem criticism doesn't itself refute the facts reported by the article.
And in fact, Deutsche Banke actually made the reported announcements, as reported by Bloomberg.
Are the claims false when they're on a "bad" site, but simultaneously true when they're on a "good" site? Put differently, do you have a refutation of the DB recommendations that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy?
That's not what "ad hominem" means. They frame things in misleading ways, which disqualifies them from serious discussion. Not to note that the article reports opinions, not facts.
The Bloomberg article upon which this is based, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-..., would have been the much better choice to link anyway since it's in English. What it says is that some DB analysts thinks German stocks are overvalued, and that British stocks could profit from the decline of the Pound's value. How does that imply that the UK is doing well? You just linked an article, claiming that it proves your point, but didn't say how.
No, it's exactly what ad hominem means. Technically, it means "criticizing the man", as opposed the argument. But modern usage absolutely encompasses "criticizing the source" as opposed to the argument. See how your last reply also does that?
The Bloomberg article makes the same basic point as DWN, which implies that the exact opposite of what "Remain" promoters predicted is happening. Many EU countries are tanking financially, with e.g. Italian banks requesting big bail outs to avoid collapse. Meanwhile capital is flowing into Britain. Focusing on the shades of spin in these various publications (which, yes, is there) sort of misses this main fact. I agree the Bloomberg article would have been a better choice on my part, sorry about that.
Apparently it's politically uncomfortable for you, but the evidence is mounting that letting the pound fall was what Britain needed to stimulate its economy. Deutche Bank has no political reason to recommend investors leave Germany, which was supposed to be the strongest country in Europe and invest in Britain, so a likely explanation for DB's recommendation is that it reflects the economic reality.
You continue to reduce the effects of the referendum to Deutsche Bank analysts' opinion on British and German stocks.
Why do you bring Italian banks into this? They are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
It's not new or surprising that a falling currency is good for exports and can fuel an economy. Countries were and are regularly accused of manipulating their currencies to achieve that. The thing is that Brexit hasn't happened yet, so neither have its effects. Nobody knows whom it will affect or how. But the drop in the Pound's value is a clear sign that the markets don't have a whole lot of faith. If the Pound's weakness helps their economy now, then good for them. But it doesn't prove the point you think it does.
Nobody can predict the future, so claiming that predictions about it "reflect economic reality" is misleading. The recommendation is likely to represent the analyst's sincere expectation, though. I'm not arguing to the contrary.
>> It's not new or surprising that a falling currency is good for exports and can fuel an economy.
Except that was an argument promoted primarily by Leavers, who favored letting the currency fall, right?
The majority who where against Brexit predicted severe economic problems for Britain as a direct consequence of leaving what was characterized as "safety" of the EU. The relevance seems obvious, because the opposite is happening?
By the way I'm not reducing this to DB's analysis, that's why I hinted at the larger upturn for Britain and downturn for core EU countries in the wake of Brexit. There are other indicators... I would suggest looking on on your own.
I'm sorry that you think investment advice can have no bearing in economic reality... but in that light, I don't think it would be productive for us to continue.
Let me repeat: Britain hasn't left yet, negotiations for the terms of Brexit are just beginning.
I was rather hoping I wouldn't have to dig up old "BUY MORE TECH STOCKS" or "BUY MORE HOUSES" articles from the height of the dot-com bubble or US housing bubble to point out that analyst opinions aren't necessarily right.
Exactly. Of course the markets only factor in what they understand, and sometimes they get it wrong.
But the relevant thing about it is that the market is betting in the real, hard money it trades with, not political punditry which is where the disaster is being pronounced.
