The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Tuna said:
It also seems to assume that whatever post-EU agreement we sign up to is as bad as not having any trade agreement at all.
Basically, it's guesswork. These people in one breath declare it's an incredibly complex process that will take years and years to negotiate, and in the next go on to predict the outcome of that negotiation.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the point of that entire paper.Basically, it's guesswork. These people in one breath declare it's an incredibly complex process that will take years and years to negotiate, and in the next go on to predict the outcome of that negotiation.
It was specifically a critique on the analysis Minford did regarding having no trade agreement at all.
The conclusion is... "When we analyse the same scenario considered by Minford using modern economics..."
They aren't saying that scenario WILL HAPPEN. They are saying that IF it happens, Minford's conclusions about the impact are wrong.
I agree on the dating thing though - that's weird.
FiF said:
Because it fits their prejudices or agenda or confirms some other message, so they take what they want from it.
Off topic, but on another thread, motoring related so various posters on Brexit threads won't have gone near it, but have challenged a statement quoting a bit of scientific research as absolute proof of 'x'. Yet the actual research is clear with the caveats, uncertainties and qualifications giving various possibilities as explanations. Yet people pick up on one possibility, twist that in a way that doesn't remotely fit the research or other background facts and research in related topics and authoritatively assert something largely of their own, or maybe the Guardian's, invention that fits their agenda.
I think that is massively unfair on everyone who voted Remain for economic reasons, of which I was one.Off topic, but on another thread, motoring related so various posters on Brexit threads won't have gone near it, but have challenged a statement quoting a bit of scientific research as absolute proof of 'x'. Yet the actual research is clear with the caveats, uncertainties and qualifications giving various possibilities as explanations. Yet people pick up on one possibility, twist that in a way that doesn't remotely fit the research or other background facts and research in related topics and authoritatively assert something largely of their own, or maybe the Guardian's, invention that fits their agenda.
I had no prejudice on the EU, I formed my opinions AS A RESULT of the analysis, not by cherry-picking results that suited my agenda.
The overwhelming consensus was that it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Brexit eventually would be economic bad news.
The rather limited number of dissenting voices appeared to be complete loons like Minford.
Almost every sensible Brexiteer I spoke with both before and afterwards agreed with my interpretation of the available forecasts and likely outcomes.
However, they vote Leave for non-economic reasons such as sovereignty or border control or concerns around immigration etc...
Those were more important to them than a couple of points of GDP or what they saw as a very low risk of a recession.
To suggest that Remainers were so closed minded that they "twisted" the research is utter b
ks.Edited by walm on Wednesday 25th January 13:43
walm said:
FiF said:
Because it fits their prejudices or agenda or confirms some other message, so they take what they want from it.
Off topic, but on another thread, motoring related so various posters on Brexit threads won't have gone near it, but have challenged a statement quoting a bit of scientific research as absolute proof of 'x'. Yet the actual research is clear with the caveats, uncertainties and qualifications giving various possibilities as explanations. Yet people pick up on one possibility, twist that in a way that doesn't remotely fit the research or other background facts and research in related topics and authoritatively assert something largely of their own, or maybe the Guardian's, invention that fits their agenda.
I think that is massively unfair on everyone who voted Remain for economic reasons, of which I was one.Off topic, but on another thread, motoring related so various posters on Brexit threads won't have gone near it, but have challenged a statement quoting a bit of scientific research as absolute proof of 'x'. Yet the actual research is clear with the caveats, uncertainties and qualifications giving various possibilities as explanations. Yet people pick up on one possibility, twist that in a way that doesn't remotely fit the research or other background facts and research in related topics and authoritatively assert something largely of their own, or maybe the Guardian's, invention that fits their agenda.
I had no prejudice on the EU, I formed my opinions AS A RESULT of the analysis, not by cherry-picking results that suited my agenda.
The overwhelming consensus was that it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Brexit eventually would be economic bad news.
The rather limited number of dissenting voices appeared to be complete loons like Minford.
Almost every sensible Brexiteer I spoke with both before and afterwards agreed with my interpretation of the available forecasts and likely outcomes.
However, they vote Leave for non-economic reasons such as sovereignty or border control or concerns around immigration etc...
Those were more important to them than a couple of points of GDP or what they saw as a very low risk of a recession.
To suggest that Remainers were so closed minded that they "twisted" the research is utter b
ks.I think the Remain camp shot themselves in the foot by over stating the economic impact of leaving mostly based on a straw poll of economists belongingto 2 professional bodies rather than actual research. It was the kind of tactic which would have worked before widespread internet access.
FiF said:
Please point out where I directed that solely at the Remain side. Still it's par for the course these days, alleging something that hasn't actually been said and then try and knock down your own fictitious allegation to support your own agenda.
You didn't, I never said that you did.But feel free to have a rant.
SKP555 said:
I think the Remain camp shot themselves in the foot by over stating the economic impact of leaving mostly based on a straw poll of economists belongingto 2 professional bodies rather than actual research. It was the kind of tactic which would have worked before widespread internet access.
This is so pathetic. I can't believe you morons still don't understand how research works.Feel free to show why that poll was flawed with actual reasons such as:
- Those two professional bodies were biased.
- Those more likely to respond were biased.
Otherwise it's a perfectly random sample - which is how RESEARCH works!!!!!!!!
SKP555 said:
I think the Remain camp shot themselves in the foot by over stating the economic impact of leaving mostly based on a straw poll of economists belongingto 2 professional bodies rather than actual research. It was the kind of tactic which would have worked before widespread internet access.
The Remain campaign also seemed to assume that everything would be exactly the same as it had been. There is unrest in France and Germany. Major problems in Southern Europe. If we had remained in the EU, I don't think it would have been plain sailing either. I appreciate no one has a crystal ball but I don't think the assumption that everything would remain the same was a good one.FiF said:
So petrol price rise is all to do with Brexit is it? Nothing to do with the 20%+ rise in crude oil price since May, or OPEC decisions on production to try and raise prices. All to do with Brexit. 
for gods sake man, why do you think the crude price rose in the first place #brexigeddon 
walm said:
FiF said:
Please point out where I directed that solely at the Remain side. Still it's par for the course these days, alleging something that hasn't actually been said and then try and knock down your own fictitious allegation to support your own agenda.
You didn't, I never said that you did.But feel free to have a rant.
Tuna said:
walm said:
You have fundamentally misunderstood the point of that entire paper.
Actually, I was just going off the quote that you used to illustrate what you seemed to think was the point of the paper. 
It was a quote to back up my point regarding the inevitable hole from the EU.
There was no implication that it was the point of the paper!!!
If you guys want to pick holes in my argument you need to stop putting up transparent straw men.
RicksAlfas said:
The Remain campaign also seemed to assume that everything would be exactly the same as it had been. There is unrest in France and Germany. Major problems in Southern Europe. If we had remained in the EU, I don't think it would have been plain sailing either. I appreciate no one has a crystal ball but I don't think the assumption that everything would remain the same was a good one.
I agree. The vote to remain was sold as status quo, which it wasn't. It would have been tacit approval for the EU to rule roughshod over its member nations.ofcorsa said:
I agree. The vote to remain was sold as status quo, which it wasn't. It would have been tacit approval for the EU to rule roughshod over its member nations.
Who is this person Mr/Mrs EU. Brexiters keep referring to him/her but I have looked on the web and cannot see any evidence of their existence.ofcorsa said:
RicksAlfas said:
The Remain campaign also seemed to assume that everything would be exactly the same as it had been. There is unrest in France and Germany. Major problems in Southern Europe. If we had remained in the EU, I don't think it would have been plain sailing either. I appreciate no one has a crystal ball but I don't think the assumption that everything would remain the same was a good one.
I agree. The vote to remain was sold as status quo, which it wasn't. It would have been tacit approval for the EU to rule roughshod over its member nations.k out beforehandwalm said:
This is so pathetic. I can't believe you morons still don't understand how research works.
Feel free to show why that poll was flawed with actual reasons such as:
- Those two professional bodies were biased.
- Those more likely to respond were biased.
Otherwise it's a perfectly random sample - which is how RESEARCH works!!!!!!!!
If we're talking about this oneFeel free to show why that poll was flawed with actual reasons such as:
- Those two professional bodies were biased.
- Those more likely to respond were biased.
Otherwise it's a perfectly random sample - which is how RESEARCH works!!!!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/e...
Which I was, and as far as I recall this was the most widely touted example of "proof" that Brexit is bad for the economy (whatever that means) then...
Firstly there was no actual research. It was an opinion poll of economists. 600 educated guesses.
Secondly, not all economists are experts in trade or in long term macro forecasts. Someone whose main job is predicting demand for health services in Oldham isn't necessarily qualified to make an authoritative prediction for GDP 15 years hence.
Thirdly, nobody is really qualified to make that sort of prediction off the cuff. To even attempt an accurate prediction would require a model of absurd complexity and it would rest on many tenuous assumptions, not least what alternative arrangements we made. Which of course is still unknown.
What it shows is that a random sample of economists who did respond generally follow the standard economic theory that a reduction in trade will lead to a reduction in GDP when asked by way of a multiple choice question.
Lastly, only 17% of those sent the survey even responded which shoots down the idea that this represents a settled consensus amongst economists. Of course not responding doesn't tell us anything except that 83% were either too busy, not interested or just maybe not willing to engage in what was obviously a politicised poll.
So this moron will give consideration to proper "RESEARCH" but I won't consider a complex hypothetical question a matter of settled scientific consensus based on a straw poll of people with a related degree.
Burwood said:
ofcorsa said:
RicksAlfas said:
The Remain campaign also seemed to assume that everything would be exactly the same as it had been. There is unrest in France and Germany. Major problems in Southern Europe. If we had remained in the EU, I don't think it would have been plain sailing either. I appreciate no one has a crystal ball but I don't think the assumption that everything would remain the same was a good one.
I agree. The vote to remain was sold as status quo, which it wasn't. It would have been tacit approval for the EU to rule roughshod over its member nations.k out beforehandhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38749884
He doesn't seem too impressed with the EU
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff