The EU debate - Part III

More perils lie in wait for the eurozone
Divergence in the performance of members of the single currency is a real challenge

In the third quarter of 2016, the eurozone’s aggregate real GDP was a mere 1.8 per cent higher than in the first quarter of 2008. Remarkably, real domestic demand in the eurozone was 1.1 per cent lower in the second quarter of 2016 than it had been in the first quarter of 2008. This extreme weakness of demand should not have happened. It represents a huge failure.

A severe challenge is the divergence in economic performance among the members of the single currency, with deep recessions in a number of member countries (notably Italy) and stagnation in others (notably France). According to the Conference Board, a research group, between 2007 and 2016 real GDP per head at purchasing power parity rose 11 per cent in Germany, barely changed in France, and fell 8 per cent in Spain and 11 per cent in Italy. It will probably take until the end of the decade before Spanish real incomes per head return to their pre-crisis levels. In Italy, this seems unlikely to happen before the mid-2020s. The painful truth is that the eurozone has not only suffered poor overall performance, but has also proved to be a machine for generating economic divergence among members rather than convergence.

Italy has a problematic banking sector, with some €360bn in non-performing loans. Yet this is mainly the result of the deep and prolonged slump. If this continues, still more bad debt is likely to emerge. The inability to agree on how to resolve the banking crisis in ways that meet the constraints of Italian politics on the one hand, and of European rules calling for bail-ins, rather than bailouts, on the other, is now a canker in Italy’s politics.

In the third quarter of 2016, Italy’s aggregate real domestic demand was 10 per cent lower than in the first quarter of 2008, while Spain’s was still close to 11 per cent lower, as it recovered from its post-crisis fall of nearly 19 per cent. Germany’s real demand has risen by 8 per cent over the same period. But its current account surplus has risen from 7 per cent of GDP in 2007 to a forecast of just under 9 per cent in 2016. This is yet another failure in internal eurozone adjustment and makes it too dependent on a large external surplus.

https://www.ft.com/content/b8d5c83a-badf-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

 

I'm happy to be challenged
There is a standard measurement of autonomy we are at level 3 with Google and Ubers current technology. The GATEway project is level 4 and that is what I am referring to. Feel free to contradict.

If you lived in Pittsburgh then a driverless Uber may pick you up and if it does then your fare is free.

 

He got rinsed (again) on his "the Victorians were all pro homosexuality" **** up and is looking for another conversation kickstarter to keep him going until Saxton starts reviewing the Daily Mail around 4.30am.

 

Yet again more deflection and you have the audacity to have a pop at Hull.
I am obviously a little too stupid to understand technology, so please explain to me how my driverless taxi is going to pick me up and take me to the pub.
Just to clarify,
I don't live in Pittsburgh, I live in the U.K.
I live down a country lane with a single file access road (very common in the U.K.)
The pub is in the town, with a road network that hasn't changed since Victorian days, with parked cars making it extremely challenging to navigate round them.

 

You absolute buffoon, just admit you ****ed up and move on, you tedious, predictable, thick, auld gobshite

 

Aye up, tedious tobes the ****er still hoping someone believes his desperate bleating. What a nob.

 

The current road network and your single tack lane doesn't preclude the driverless technology.

You're both right, the technology exists and is in test, but it's not yet refined enough to be completely predictable and cater for all eventualities, and as I repeated earlier, the liabilities will be the stumbling block that stop the car that is sold as 'autonomous', making it to market for a long time yet.

Anyway, back to the point, technology advances and automation don't restrict employment, they ultimately create employment providing your economy is one that is investing in Univeristy R&D and incubation of new S&T business - oh the EU funding......damn

 

Post some more pictures of French Transvestites to 'prove' you ****ish point Dull



You thick ****

 

Aye, more bleating, no doubt the few left on here you haven't bored ****less will think you've proven some point, when in reality, you did as you often do, and tried running off on some peculiar tangent from one small point on a wider reply.

Your replies say quite a lot about you, as they reflect your self doubts

Me? I just keep marking you down as a tedious ****er with an inferiority complex.

If I had to guess, I'd reckon you were of below average height.

 

You are overplaying the Hull bit, I choose to not get bogged down in the kind of tedious conversation we are currently having, but I do not attack him for it. I recognise it as his way.
To answer
None. Because you are not currently in a trial area.
However Oxbotica have been playing with autonomous vehicles around Oxfordshire villages for a while as part of their Geni development project.

Let me try and go back to the original concept to explain why I think you are deliberately missing the point.

Uber are not interested in one man at a country pub, they are targeting short journeys around cities.
BMW are not interested in one man at a pub they are looking at company car pools and lease where a driver goes from office to office and can continue to work whilst being driven.
Uber have just acquired Otto which has developed an autonomous highway system for HGVs.
gateway project is autonomous public transport in car free areas.

I tried very hard to explain before that roll out of autonomous vehicles will be driven by commercial reasons but it's clear you aren't interested. You seem to believe Uber are pissing money up the wall instead.

Your assumption is that an autonomous car could not navigate a country lane. Yet when I supplied you with a simple set of rules for achieving this you didn't respond. We are never going to agree.

 

A red, white and blue Brexit

A British Brexit for British people

 

At no point have I said that the technology won't eventually lead to driverless vehicles or that it will hamper employment. In fact I believe the opposite for both.
My point that I have been trying to get across is that at the moment it is no more than an R&D program. If history has shown us anything, it is that technology will not be the only driver (excuse the pun) and beyond Steven's obsession with UBER, I'm not sure there is much appetite for it in the short term. It will, whether Steve likes it or not, require huge investment. Using the states, where 8 lane single direction, freeways exist is not really a fair comparison. If all we end up with is some half arsed "point to point" system, then that's not much of either an advantage or cost saving opportunity.

 

The pieguts v steveinaster1 debate is like one of the sub plots in Pulp Fiction. Maybe it will turn out to be a crucial element in pulling the whole discussion towards a conclusion.

Dull will do his best to prevent that from happening

 

I don't have an obsession with Uber,
It is Uber that has the current obsession with driverless technology which is why I have no option but to mention them.

 

I don't think I'm missing the point at all.
You're still failing to answer the the most basic of questions. If automonus vehicles are going to be restricted to point to point deliveries, whether that's goods or people, how is that different from other transport modes such as trains or buses. Everyone I know who uses a taxi, does so for a complete service. You claim that it will be commercial reasons, but where is any cost advantage, say for example, compared to a train, where you currently get the benefit of economy of scale. Your also now assuming that in the future people will travel from office to office? As technology advances, it might be, that there is less of a need for people being in offices. Certainly in my own company, they are using technology to reduce travel?
Yes you did offer some some rules around how to navigate country lanes. That's all well and good theoretically, but the reality is far from that simple. As I tried to explain, to meet safety concerns, redundancy will have to be built in. If this redundancy follows the same rules as other industrial safety type devices, then it will have to be different from the primary safety system (navigation system), which kind of leads to sensors and switches. It will be a bit late when the vehicles are bumper to bumper.

 

I've only ever used an Uber once and he went the wrong way down a one way street. Twice. The same street. It was ****ing hilarious.

 

Theresa May's "plan" should be to ask for everything. The EUs plan will be to give nothing away. Before the negotiations nothing will change. The whiners can whine but it would be ridiculous to concede anything until there's negotiations.

 

That made me giggle wayyyyy to much

 

She's made you look like a proper **** pal.

Actually, to be more accurate, the lovely Gina Miller, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems have made you look like a proper **** pal.

Brexit means WE HAVE NO IDEA!



Tory Stan

 

Who said they will be restricted to point to point?
I said I expected them to initially be restricted to prescribed areas.

But even in a point to point scenario Autonomous buses etc have a huge commercial advantage over buses with a driver in that you no longer pay for a driver. Over the life of the vehicle it will more than offset the tech cost.
There will always be business travel, most of my meetings are conference calls these days I see no change in that. If anything they have had to relax it because customers respond better to face to face contact ( and staff tbh).

That you assume a primary navigation system is where we differ. It already is multiple systems working to make best guesses based on a knowledge built over many scenarios. Your question is more related to driving style than a genuine technological concern imo. If a machine is taught to be too cautious it never pulls away, if it is too ambitious then it risks accident.
If there is a fault detected then obviously you would expect it to stop ( and hopefully call for help).