Luvvie algorithms

There was a flash crash of sterling a few days ago with the pound suddenly plummeting to a new low against the dollar (as bad as in 1985 --what happened then?). Remainers are panicking, of course. They have now chosen the exchange rate as the key indicator of impending doom, rather than the Stock Market FTSE index (which is buoyant) or the elusive 'Confidence Index' (disappeared altogether from the public view). In the Freedland piece below, the high stock exchange is simply an effect of us still being in the EU: however, strangely, the falling exchange rate is equally a sign of panic about us not being in the EU in the future.

Among those wetting themselves is the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who
is talking not just of 'hard Brexit' but 'extreme Brexit'. He argues that the fall in the pound occurs every time politicians talk of a hard Brexit, or rather that 'Brexit really will happen'. He says the Government should have been opting for loopholes in agreements on free movement of labour not people, and a general deal to stay in the free trade area, as with Norway (who pay for the privilege and accept 'free' movement of labour). We should have been welcoming (skilled) overseas labour not threatening to replace them with Brits (so far only medics). If we play tough, he warns, 'basic food imports won’t be allowed in either.' (this could mean, for Guardinists, cheap fresh strawberries all year round, as we saw).

Freedland argues that no-one actually voted for this disaster (he knows how 17 million people voted, of course). Someone must speak up for sanity and the thwarted 48% Remain voters. The Tories all seem to have been converted to Brexit, so that leaves only Labour (and media luvvies no doubt).

The BBC is also worried, as we saw, about the tough talking from Government. A number of spokespersons have tried in vain to explain that you need to talk tough entering a negotiation -- Brits as well as the EU. The failure to realise this is another hallmark of luvviedom -- no-one has to talk tough where they live, and they are used to just getting their own way.


However, the flashcrash might have different origins according to another piece. This says the whole crash might have been a mistake in data entry (a 'fat finger') or the result of an over-tuned algorithm designed to sell sterling if a negative headline appears in any financial press. This really appeals as an example of the utter lunacy of modern capitalism: someone (probably quite a junior person, perhaps even a non-native English speaker, in a kind of Empire's revenge) decides to provide a programmer with a number of definitions of 'negative words'; someone else writes a headline (in the Financial Times, it was rumoured) to summarise a speech, in French, using negative words in English (perhaps to attract readers rather than to summarise the story). The two meet. A sterling crash ensues. Other algorithms then cut in to buy sterling at the new low price and sterling regains its value within 20 seconds -- but not to the same extent. People in the market interrpet this as a weakness in sterling! Some metropolitan journalist then writes a panicky story triggered by the episode!