Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Against this you hope that in some unexplained way Leaving will enable our economy to not only recover those loses but also go on to greater things.  This is a possible but hugely unlikely scenario.     

       

Not only have I never said that any short term losses will be recovered I certainly have never said that the economy will go on to greater things. I have said repeatedly that I simply don't know where the economy will be in twenty or thirty years time - but neither do you. There is no "unexplained" way because my point is that this is inexplicable. 

The problem you have is that all the evidence is on my side. The very experts who you rely on would admit that the degree of uncertainty attaching to forecasts beyond the very short term is huge and that such forecasts are virtually worthless.This study:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/15/gdp-predictions-are-reliable-only-in-the-short-term

indicates that GDP forecasts even 22 months ahead were out by 1.3% and forecasters were particularly bad at forecasting recessions! In a twenty year period there will likely be at least two recessions which will likely amend the trajectory of the economy and which, in themselves, will blow holes in any predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Hasn't that "campaign" fallen on its ****? Or are the Lib Demmers going to win 300 seats?

Tactical voting is the only game in town.

The LibDems were never going to win 300 seats and were mad not to seek alliances. The most ridiculous claim in this campaign was Swinson's claim that she would be the next PM :lol:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

Interesting that the second highest growth in spending in a single year was under Thatcher and the largest fall was under Callaghan!

None of the above negates my statement - as I never mentioned real terms. 

I merely observed life wasn't perfect in the NHS under any government. And its not always the fault of a lack or money or politicians - but often bad management locally.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/06/mid-staffs-hospital-scandal-guide

 

There is no doubt the NHS could be much better run. There is waste and there is some bad management. It's top heavy and has become a number one political football.

But it's made of 2 worlds - one is what the nurses, paramedics and doctors do - which is the shit show of underfunding. The other is the politics and ineptitude of 'managers' - often appointed without knowledge of the way the NHS works on the ground and driven by the self-serving profit incentive rather than getting stuck in to what's needed.

 

Edited by jonb2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The same logic applies with remainers. Some want the status quo, some want the Euro and Schengen, some want the break up  of the UK and the USofE (all of these are positions held by forum members). So what version of remain are people voting for?

The one on the table. The one that was presented. The one written into the legal framework. That is what 16m voted for, a specific well defined Remain.

I want to see the eventual Brexit deal up against the current Remain. If the Brexit deal is chosen then fair play, otherwise I and I suspect many other will never accept the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

Not all aspects of trade with the single market is harmonised, thus if you make, say a Bicycle in the UK, and the laws of Germany are different in regards to Bicycles, then as long as those Bicycles are made to a "UK standard", then they can automatically sold in Germany.  Outside of the SM, it means that potentially that, that Bicycle manufacturer will be confronted with the differing standards of each SM state.

I understand this. But I was wondering if your figure of 20% took into account the 15% of RoW trade we do through the EU?

Or am I being dim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I want to see the eventual Brexit deal up against the current Remain. If the Brexit deal is chosen then fair play, otherwise I and I suspect many other will never accept the result.

You're not comparing like for like. If it's acceptable to speculate about where Brexit will take us why should we not likewise speculate about where Remain will take us? That would be comparing like for like and a much better basis of comparison. The issue is not where we might be in twenty years time vs the present deal; it's about where we would be in twenty years' time in or out of the EU at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crouch said:

You're not comparing like for like. If it's acceptable to speculate about where Brexit will take us why should we not likewise speculate about where Remain will take us? That would be comparing like for like and a much better basis of comparison. The issue is not where we might be in twenty years time vs the present deal; it's about where we would be in twenty years' time in or out of the EU at that time.

No. The issue is what is on the table today, that is the only thing that people can vote on. Because, as you say, and keep saying, "no one can know da fu'ta", therefore there is little point in voting on it, especially as the leave a55holes don't believe in plans and strategies to enact da fu'ta.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IMHAL said:

No. The issue is what is on the table today, that is the only thing that people can vote on. Because, as you say, and keep saying, "no one can know da fu'ta", therefore there is little point in voting on it, especially as the leave a55holes don't believe in plans and strategies to enact da fu'ta.    

I'm afraid it won't do. You continuously speculate about where we will end up under Brexit yet are disinclined to indulge in where we will be if we stay, despite the fact, as I say, this is the correct basis of comparison. I would think most people would want to know where they would be under each scenario and to compare a speculative future  with a present state that is assumed not to change is nonsense - and obvious nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm afraid it won't do. You continuously speculate about where we will end up under Brexit yet are disinclined to indulge in where we will be if we stay, despite the fact, as I say, this is the correct basis of comparison. I would think most people would want to know where they would be under each scenario and to compare a speculative future  with a present state that is assumed not to change is nonsense - and obvious nonsense.

No. The only thing we can vote on is the deal that is presented to us, in the here and now.One has to form a judgement, taking in all current evidence, future projections from experts (for us that believe in such thing) and one's own personal preference as to where we personally think that will take us in the future, based on the deal on the table today and your belief and trust in the promises for tomorrow.

Most people may want to know where we will be in the fu'ta, but that is not available except as a matter of speculation.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

No. The only thing we can vote on is the deal that is presented to us, in the here and now.One has to form a judgement, taking in all current evidence, future projections from experts (for us that believe in such thing) and one's own personal preference as to where we personally think that will take us in the future, based on the deal on the table today and your belief and trust in the promises for tomorrow.

Most people may want to know where we will be in the fu'ta, but that is not available except as a matter of speculation.

Which cuts both ways, as has been pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crouch said:

Not only have I never said that any short term losses will be recovered I certainly have never said that the economy will go on to greater things. I have said repeatedly that I simply don't know where the economy will be in twenty or thirty years time - but neither do you. There is no "unexplained" way because my point is that this is inexplicable. 

The problem you have is that all the evidence is on my side. The very experts who you rely on would admit that the degree of uncertainty attaching to forecasts beyond the very short term is huge and that such forecasts are virtually worthless.This study:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/15/gdp-predictions-are-reliable-only-in-the-short-term

indicates that GDP forecasts even 22 months ahead were out by 1.3% and forecasters were particularly bad at forecasting recessions! In a twenty year period there will likely be at least two recessions which will likely amend the trajectory of the economy and which, in themselves, will blow holes in any predictions.

And as I've pointed out before, those macro forecasts (2000-17) would all have incorporated 'loanable funds' banking models. Since banks are originators of credit financing not intermediaries between borrowers and savers, wrong by definition.

As this paper put together by a couple of BoE staffers makes clear:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2018/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-facts-theory-and-evidence

Quote
Published on 26 October 2018

Staff Working Paper No. 761

By Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof

In the loanable funds model, banks are modelled as resource-trading intermediaries that receive deposits of physical resources from savers before lending them to borrowers. In the financing model, banks are modelled as financial intermediaries whose loans are funded by ex-nihilo creation of ledger-entry deposits that facilitate payments among nonbanks. The financing model predicts larger and faster changes in bank lending and greater real effects of financial shocks. Aggregate bank balance sheets exhibit very high volatility, as predicted by financing models. Alternative explanations of volatility in physical savings, net securities purchases or asset valuations have almost no support in the data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

So lets see the proposed Brexit deal against a current and specific Remain deal.

On second reading: What cuts both ways?

" No. The only thing we can vote on is the deal that is presented to us, in the here and now.One has to form a judgement, taking in all current evidence, future projections from experts (for us that believe in such thing) and one's own personal preference as to where we personally think that will take us in the future, based on the deal on the table today and your belief and trust in the promises for tomorrow. "

So you can still criticise Brexit for not being specific enough right now but you can't insist on it needing to take into account where it might take us but not do the same for the EU and how that may change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

I understand this. But I was wondering if your figure of 20% took into account the 15% of RoW trade we do through the EU?

Or am I being dim?

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8384/CBP-8384.pdf

With third countries, it’s the mutual recognition on conformity assessment, which reduces checks but doesn’t eliminate them.

Edited by Dave Beans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

And as I've pointed out before, those macro forecasts (2000-17) would all have incorporated 'loanable funds' banking models. Since banks are originators of credit financing not intermediaries between borrowers and savers, wrong by definition.

As this paper put together by a couple of BoE staffers makes clear:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2018/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-facts-theory-and-evidence

 

I see what you're getting at. 

But surely these people know that it's the financing model that holds sway? Presumably the greater volatility and greater real effects are due to the relative lack of constraint of ex nihilo money creation which means that the leverage under that system is likely to be that much higher than under the loanable funds model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

" No. The only thing we can vote on is the deal that is presented to us, in the here and now.One has to form a judgement, taking in all current evidence, future projections from experts (for us that believe in such thing) and one's own personal preference as to where we personally think that will take us in the future, based on the deal on the table today and your belief and trust in the promises for tomorrow. "

So you can still criticise Brexit for not being specific enough right now but you can't insist on it needing to take into account where it might take us but not do the same for the EU and how that may change.

That is not what I said. I said that one has to form an opinion of where it (the Brexit deal or the Remain deal) might take us based on the deal as presented, the evidence available, any predictions/forecats and your own personal opinion, but all thgis need to be done on the deal as presented today. There is no hypocracy in that.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Most people may want to know where we will be in the fu'ta, but that is not available except as a matter of speculation.

In that case how can you say that Brexit will make us poorer?

And as for the rest - you're wrong - again.

Edited by crouch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm afraid it won't do. You continuously speculate about where we will end up under Brexit yet are disinclined to indulge in where we will be if we stay, despite the fact, as I say, this is the correct basis of comparison. I would think most people would want to know where they would be under each scenario and to compare a speculative future  with a present state that is assumed not to change is nonsense - and obvious nonsense.

Exactly this.

The only remain referendum majority was in 1975.

The Common Market has changed just a bit since then.

There is no such thing as a status quo. This is the whole point.

A vote for Remain is a vote for the USofE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

That is not what I said. I said that one has to form an opinion of where it (the Brexit deal or the Remain deal) might take us based on the deal as presented, the evidence available, any predictions/forecats and your own personal opinion, but all thgis need to be done on the deal as presented today. There is no hypocracy in that.

Then you admit that you absolutely must consider how you think the EU might change, and that staying in it does not mean the status quo forever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crouch said:

In that case how can you say that Brexit will make us poorer?

That is my personal belief based on the fact that degrading our trading relationship with our biggest customer will have a deliterious effect on our economy. I cannot see this lost trade being entirely and efficiencty replaced by FTA's with the ROW. There are also many many forecasts that appear to back this view up.   

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • 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.