Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.

There is a sense of disbelief about the new trade problems between Great Britain and the EU / Northern Ireland. Which we need to lose. This is the new normal. And we face a difficult period of adjustment - immediate paperwork needs, and to longer term uncompetitiveness.

As we trade folk might have mentioned before, outside of the single market and the customs union of the EU, problems at borders are normal. Delays common. Great job of the Brexit supporters to find supposed experts claiming otherwise, but now back to reality...

Such delays at borders were in fact part of the origin of the single market, in the days when the Conservatives didn't see a contradiction between free markets and sovereignty. Such delays weren't really compatible with a supposed common market. So, the single market...

The delays and individual issues will ebb and flow. There will be new regulatory requirements in EU and UK affecting different products. But for UK and EU business as a whole it will mean UK-EU trade is more costly and less predictable, and there will be economic adjustment.

To put it bluntly, some UK firms will go out of business due to new border barriers. Some EU firms will stop supplying the UK, at a cost increase to UK consumers but a possible new opportunity for firms. This adjustment will take some time though.

Just bringing together my various bits and pieces on the UK-EU. The first reactions - a significant agreement...

Winners and losers of the UK-EU deal.

Why this was always going to be a problem - regulatory soverignty v free trade involves trade offs...

Going back to mid-2019, why the deal the UK wanted from the EU, the same benefits with none of the costs, couldn't be available.

More recently, why the Brexit dream is dying - because it wasn't designed to deal with a situation where we had to choose between trade with the EU and freedom.

The first working day of the new UK-EU relationship. We're going to hear a lot this year from all sides (remain and Brexit in UK, EU, etc) using any possible scrap of evidence. But what we need to look for is trends, over time, so a few to think about in this thread... 1/

Obvious disruption or reduction to UK-EU trade flow. Here we may be thinking e.g. of a permanent 10% fall in traffic, or regular queues, or indeed no change. And apart from goods, the same with individual travel, for work, residence etc... 2/

As a reminder we're not expecting permanent scenes like those of the week before Christmas when borders were closed. But 5-10% reductions in UK-EU traffic would not seem to be out of line with economic forecasts of a hit to the UK economy. 3/

Then we'll need to look at whether UK-EU trade is being substituted by UK-non EU trade. This probably should happen to a degree, and in theory efficiencies could come this way. But its also possible that all UK trade falls, with the UK no longer an EU entry point. 4/

Inward investment is another key post-Brexit indicator. There isn't a single obvious data set here, but the impression of the last four years has been a fall off in manufacturing, but not in services, particularly tech. Continuation would suggest economy tilting to services. 5/

Breathless accounts of brilliant negotiating are oddly unaccompanied by statements of UK wins.

Twice the PM has signed up to deals he previously said no PM could sign up for. The level of self-deception in turning these into triumphs is off the scale.

A wise man has suggested that Johnson's self delusions are good for the UK in the way he folds under EU pressure but denies it - that this actually delivers the best result.

But it doesn't do much for the country's politcal debate to have such delusions at the heart of the most important economic relationship. And they don't have such delusions in Belfast.

Perhaps it is the way of UK politics that no leader can be seen to be pro-EU, that the UK must be seen to be bigger than the EU, even though the UK is obviously smaller and needs the EU for trade.

As promised, a little story. Of how the EU ask of the UK on the level playing field is indeed new, how that came about, and why we should have been able to deal with this a lot better. And how, indirectly, David Frost is one of the reasons. Beware, contains analysis... 1/

Let us go back 5 years to the height of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) discussions. As you may recall, by 2015 TTIP was about as popular in the EU as allegedly the EU is these days in the red wall. What, thought the EU and Member States, could be done? 2/

TTIP will be more popular, declared more than one insider, if we show there are tough labour and environment protections against undercutting by the nefarious and probably untrustworthy US. That, optimistically they said, will get NGOs on side. 3/

But there was a problem with EU level playing field provisions in 2015. The unit of DG Trade responsible absolutely did not believe anything should be enforceable. Pages of loose commitments, fine. Add more! But apparently enforcement was best done through a good chat. 4/

Now such soft-touch EU enforcement of level playing fields was probably designed particularly for developing countries, where sanctions were seen as unfairly penalising struggling business and individuals for the actions of a terrible government. Not the US. 5/

Little history of QFS

Let’s put all this Woo Woo stuff aside and find out what the QFS has been doing over the last two years or so. It has been very busy.

Those involved in using this computer have learned how to “connect” into the archaic Central Bank computer(s) system. Through the SWIFT transfer protocol used by the Central Banks (CB),/2

the QFS has obtained account information from every Tier 1 bank account in every bank in the world that is linked to the SWIFT transfer system./3

It has also obtained info for 2nd tier and 3rd tier banks that don’t have their own SWIFT transfer codes and use Tier 1 banks to service their customer’s transfer requests. Tier 2 &3 banks have accounts in Tier 1 banks that are used to transfer money./4

With this information, the QFS was integrated into the SWIFT transfer system and programmed it to where each transfer is channeled through the QFS to record transfer data. The data is then inserted back into the SWIFT system to complete the transfer to the intended bank account.5

Re: Fannie/Freddie-The Path Is Actually Clearer NOW. On its face, this claim may sound ludicrous off the back of a precipitous drop in valuations due to what some interpret as SM losing his nerve and punting to a hostile Admin. In this thread, I posit the exact opposite.

First, the economic realities: 1) GSEs are the bedrock behind our housing market which in turn is the bedrock behind our economy, 2) after 12 years and $300 bn, gov has thus far squandered the opportunity to recap, 3) this economy recovery is VERY long in the tooth.

When Trump took office, we all hoped that he would usher in a regime change from the Admins that enacted conservatorship and then the Net Worth Sweep. Well, he actually did that with the appointments of SM and MC.

Yet, what always bothered me about SM was his perfect poker-face. For those of you following me for awhile, you know I’ve been saying that I couldn’t tell whether he was just playing bad cop or really was Darth Vader incarnate.

The primary consensus exit preconditions were: 1) there has to be a demonstrable path to meeting cap reqs, 2) the SPS needs to be forgiven, 3) court cases need to be settled.

"Hello, IT? My economy has stopped working."

"Have you tried -"

"Yes."

"Okay. Check settings. What does it say under software?"

"Compatible with EU membership."

"Do you have that?"

"I just uninstalled it."

"Er - Why?"

"Honestly, I can't remember. Something about fish?"

"Is your fish industry running okay?"

"No, actually that was the first app to crash."

"You see, that one really needs the EU platform installed."

"Really? But my mate told me fishing would run better without it."

"He sounds confused. Can you reinstall your EU app?"

"What about this app my mate gave me instead? It's called Sovereignty 45."

"Mate, don't touch that. It's malware. It'll reduce your economy down to the levels of 1945."

"But those were the glory years! Weren't they?"

"Mate, when were you born?"

"1960. Why?”

“You have also installed the Hostile Environment firewall which is limiting the capacity of other systems”

"But my mate said those things stop viruses."

"Is your mate's name Nigel by any chance?"

"Yes! How did you -"

"Another wild stab. Those aren't viruses, they are EU workers, and they are vital to the smooth running of your systems."

"But I clicked on a pop-up that said it would get rid of them all for me."

I think one way of looking at the economic pathologies of our society, without using words like 'capitalism' and 'rentiership', is to talk about inequities in the distribution of risk. Some have more taste for risk than others, sure, but risk is not distributed on this basis.

In the UK, so much of our political troubles come from the growth in the landlord class, who if nothing else, wield disproportionate power relative to their social worth: at one and the same time claim to be martyrs to the risk of investment, and demand these risks be minimised.

Of course, it's possible to make claims like this: e.g., nurses have every right to claim that they shoulder not merely more risk than most, but far more risk than is strictly necessary. The pandemic has made this brutally obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

However one chooses to tally up compensation for this social role, be it financial, social, or some other privilege, it's pretty obvious that every last 'essential worker' is shouldering more societal risk than most non-essential workers compensated far better than they.

The way this trade off gets (implicitly) articulated as 'pay vs. purpose' is one of the enduring insights of @davidgraeber's Bullshit Jobs. Yet there are many essential workers who don't even get the illusion of purpose in compensation for personal risk (e.g., warehouse staff).