Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Brexit isn't isolationist.

If anything it involves more engagement with the greater world, not less.

Quite.

There's a common misunderstanding among Remainers that Brexit means not wanting anything to do with Europe, when what it actually means is not wanting to be a member of the EU. That indicates a dislike of the EU, not a dislike with cooperation with other countries. I suspect it stems from another example of over-simplified black and white thinking substitute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes bring with it changes......could bring changes to the constitution, could bring  changes to the voting system?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, crouch said:

I am trying to keep this relating to the real World and failing fairly comprehensibly.

 

Of course not but what has this to do with the matter on hand? I am pleading ignorance not knowledge; it is you who are pleading knowledge. I don't have to prove anything; you're the one who has to prove things.

 Precisely. So if someone says we will be worse off in 30 years' time the question arises worse off than what? The "what" is the counterfactual. It is indeed "what didn't happen".

You have expressed your view on two statements below. That is in a contrary to you pleading ignorance above. A discussion requires consistency and ability to provide arguments for the views you express. Otherwise it is a completely senseless exercise, a random mumbling.  

1. In the long term is equally likely that we will be better off or worse off relative to our current state in case of Brexit happening.

2. Brexit in the long term will make us worse off, on average relative to scenario there is no Brexit.

As for a contractual, you are wrong, There are two future outcomes, we leave the EU on 31/10 or we don't leave on 31/10. At the movement neither of them is a fact or a counterfactual. If one of them becomes reality then other becomes a counterfactual.    

You still didn't explain what a counterfactual has to with validity of my statement. Is this just a random argument?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, slawek said:

1. In the long term is equally likely that we will be better off or worse off relative to our current state in case of Brexit happening.

That I regard as tantamount to ignorance; it is saying anything is possible.

31 minutes ago, slawek said:

2. Brexit in the long term will make us worse off, on average relative to scenario there is no Brexit.

No. There is no roof of this and there cannot be.

 

32 minutes ago, slawek said:

As for a contractual, you are wrong, There are two future outcomes, we leave the EU on 31/10 or we don't leave on 31/10. At the movement neither of them is a fact or a counterfactual. If one of them becomes reality then other becomes a counterfactual.    

I am not talking about leaving on 31 October; I am talking about the need to provide a counterfactual in reaching the judgement that we will be worse off after 30 years outside the EU.

All of this is very simple but you seem unable to grasp this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crouch said:

That I regard as tantamount to ignorance; it is saying anything is possible.

I've proved your statement is false unless you assume Brexit karma.

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

No. There is no roof of this and there cannot be.

There is a simple proof if you assume 

a) Brexit will cause a short loss

b) there is no Brexit karma, the universe doesn't prefer positive scenarios after Brexit to compensate for it

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit happening) = Brexit gain + E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit happening) 

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit not happening)  = No Brexit gain + 

E(gain since Brexit time  to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

from assumption a) 

Brexit gain < No Brexit gain

from assumption b) 

E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit happening)  = E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

this implies  

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit happening)  < E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

where 

E  - expectation 

T - any time after Brexit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, slawek said:

I've proved your statement is false unless you assume Brexit karma.

There is a simple proof if you assume 

a) Brexit will cause a short loss

b) there is no Brexit karma, the universe doesn't prefer positive scenarios after Brexit to compensate for it

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit happening) = Brexit gain + E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit happening) 

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit not happening)  = No Brexit gain + 

E(gain since Brexit time  to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

from assumption a) 

Brexit gain < No Brexit gain

from assumption b) 

E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit happening)  = E(gain since Brexit time to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

this implies  

E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit happening)  < E(gain since now to time T conditional on Brexit not happening) 

where 

E  - expectation 

T - any time after Brexit

No.

I give up.

Ignorance requires no proof and it is neither right nor wrong.

You seem quite unable to grasp any of this and you have proved nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, crouch said:

No.

I give up.

Ignorance requires no proof and it is neither right nor wrong.

You seem quite unable to grasp any of this and you have proved nothing.

His algorithm is correct only if assumption (b) is correct:

b) there is no Brexit karma, the universe doesn't prefer positive scenarios after Brexit to compensate for it

Whereas there are good reasons to think the opposite will be true.

He can't claim that (b) is 100% certain, he is presenting predictions as facts.

 

Edited by kzb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kzb said:

He can't claim that (b) is 100% certain, he is presenting predictions as facts.

I rather assumed that and when anyone starts mentioning "karma" I know they've lost the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, crouch said:

No.

I give up.

Ignorance requires no proof and it is neither right nor wrong.

You seem quite unable to grasp any of this and you have proved nothing.

Ignorance has its limits, you can't claim you don't anything. The reality has its constraints that limit your ignorance. A simple example, a dice with numbers from 1 to 6, which has 4 sides black and 2 white.

You can't claim both 

a) after rolling a dice all numbers are equally likely 

b) after rolling a dice getting white or black side is equally likely 

Please show my proof is incorrect. It is based on two assumptions and probability theory. You need either to show the assumptions are wrong or invalidate maths.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, crouch said:

I rather assumed that and when anyone starts mentioning "karma" I know they've lost the argument.

changing wording to more suitable for you e.g. Brexit bias doesn't invalidate the argument

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slawek said:

Ignorance has its limits, you can't claim you don't anything. The reality has its constraints that limit your ignorance. A simple example, a dice with numbers from 1 to 6, which has 4 sides black and 2 white.

You can't claim both 

a) after rolling a dice all numbers are equally likely 

b) after rolling a dice getting white or black side is equally likely 

Please show my proof is incorrect. It is based on two assumptions and probability theory. You need either to show the assumptions are wrong or invalidate maths.  

Actually (a) is definitely true and adds nothing to the argument.

You are getting into probability arguments now, which is a different thing to saying that something is 100% certain, as you were before.

In your example Brexit has a 1/3 chance of making us better off.  Or 2/3 depending on what colour corresponds to Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kzb said:

Actually (a) is definitely true and adds nothing to the argument.

You are getting into probability arguments now, which is a different thing to saying that something is 100% certain, as you were before.

In your example Brexit has a 1/3 chance of making us better off.  Or 2/3 depending on what colour corresponds to Brexit.

a) is true if the dice a fair, but you can build a dice where b) is true

The dice example is only to show that you can't claim a total ignorance. You can't claim both ignorance about a number and a colour. 

The Brexit claim compares two deterministic expectations, the relation between those two numbers is 100% certain when the assumptions are deterministic.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/08/2019 at 14:59, crouch said:

You're drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Quite a reasonable conclusion given your statements - happy to stand corrected: at the end of the day I'm interested in what people think and why.

On 11/08/2019 at 14:59, crouch said:

 

"Fecking it all up" is - again - a pejorative term that assumes what requires to be demonstrated - and it can't be.

There isn't really any Remainer or Leaver who would disagree we are trashing our current relationship with the EU which offers considerable economic/trade advantages. We are currently p1ssing funds that are needed elsewhere up the wall on no-deal preparations. 

No-deal is of course 'no-use' to us and if it happens we'll we desperate to get out of that situation lickety-split.

Plenty of Leavers insist WTO is fine but in view of the arguments given for it this is clearly a hopelessly childish stance.

Future trading partners quite reasonably will wait for us to be in a position of maximum weakness. Canada can't be bothered with a trade deal at all. We can guess why the US is keen. We can guess why Tufton St is keen.

It looks like you are unreasonably trying to evade criticism of Brexit. Imho its silly at best, but does not undermine the fact you very motivated to do so, so its more interesting  understanding why.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slawek said:

Ignorance has its limits, you can't claim you don't anything. The reality has its constraints that limit your ignorance. A simple example, a dice with numbers from 1 to 6, which has 4 sides black and 2 white.

You can't claim both 

a) after rolling a dice all numbers are equally likely 

b) after rolling a dice getting white or black side is equally likely 

Please show my proof is incorrect. It is based on two assumptions and probability theory. You need either to show the assumptions are wrong or invalidate maths.  

I don't know where the economy will be in 30 years - and neither do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

There's a common misunderstanding among Remainers that Brexit means not wanting anything to do with Europe

Yawn, getting pretty bored of the "Remainers say X" and "Remainers think Y" strawmen on this thread. How about engaging with what people are actually saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pig said:

It looks like you are unreasonably trying to evade criticism of Brexit. Imho its silly at best, but does not undermine the fact you very motivated to do so, so its more interesting  understanding why.

No you're quite wrong. I think you can criticize Brexit on any number of grounds but what concerns me is that many of the arguments are simply assertions which cannot be demonstrated but which pass as facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crouch said:

I don't know where the economy will be in 30 years - and neither do you.

As I said before I don't know where the economy will be in 30 years, but you and I can make some claims what is more likely or not to happen.

By saying "I don't know anything" you just claim that according to you all the states of the economy in 30 years are equally likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Err, he was.

So if he wasn't arguing with a straw man, which "Remainer" was he talking to/about?

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slawek said:

As I said before I don't know where the economy will be in 30 years, but you and I can make some claims what is more likely or not to happen.

By saying "I don't know anything" you just claim that according to you all the states of the economy in 30 years are equally likely.

No this is not true. 

I certainly have no idea where the economy will be in 30 years and I believe you can say very little.  So when you say you can make some claims of what is more likely or not I'm afraid I disagree.

The net effect of this is that you are unable to make any statements which are of the slightest value. Which is rather my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Imagine the things that they would have to predict in order to get it right.

There's literally nothing at stake anymore. You can lose face politically for making a bad call one day and the news cycle has wiped it within 48 hours, let alone 3 decades later. We're living in the post-truth world where the strongest liar wins. He's currently the PM.

The only prediction is that the poor will get poorer, the debt will get deeper, the rich will get richer and we'll look back on previous times with the envy that comes from experience. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeanutButter said:

There's literally nothing at stake anymore. You can lose face politically for making a bad call one day and the news cycle has wiped it within 48 hours, let alone 3 decades later. We're living in the post-truth world where the strongest liar wins. He's currently the PM.

The only prediction is that the poor will get poorer, the debt will get deeper, the rich will get richer and we'll look back on previous times with the envy that comes from experience. 

 

Very fatalistic. I vote for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.