The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Sway]

///ajd said:

Sway said:

Sod the academic study, we can see the effects.

From the Dutch when gaining independence, through to Hong-Kong, Taiwan or Singapore, every single time a nation has dropped it's import tariff regime it has prospered.

As opposed to the plenty of studies that show the increased protectionism within the US at the start of the 20thC lengthened and deepened the Great Recession.

So forgive me, but why should I bother trying to find an economist that agrees? Especially when within your lengthy post you seem to confuse the principles of zero tariffs and dropping product/trade standards, when these things are mutually exclusive.

Minford argues the pressure will be on for the EU not to reciprocate via FTA, but also to adopt unilateral free trade (which we all know they'll never do thanks to at least the French). Otherwise, their exporters will face increased competition in one of the strongest consumer markets in the world (ours), whilst also facing increased competition at home from our exports, which benefit from lower component costs as an example. As you state, they cannot impose a greater tariff on us compared to the RoW... It's a nuanced argument, but clear logic if you think it through.

Nuanced indeed - do you actually think they will? And after how long leaving the UK in a one sided tariff wilderness? The intervening period would be very painful.

The point about whether he has wider support is important to see whether he is just a David Icke type outlier, or whether his views have widespread support.

I note KK seems to think trade deals are irrelevant as business just works around barriers. He doesn't seem to see the risk that businesses relocate out of the UK into the EU if we screw this up. They will indeed adapt, I suspect he doesn't have the vision or scale to move his operation between countries - others however do. And that's GDP.

Frankly, I couldn't give a fk if they do or not - it's up to them if they want to self harm. We wouldn't be in a massively painful wilderness, our supply chains would shift where appropriate, consumer goods and raw materials currently under massive tariffs (those which you state no one is calling for, that we apply today on behalf of the EU whose institutions take a big cut) would become loads cheaper giving everyone more cash in their pockets for discretionary spending (which alone could mitigate any loss of exports to the EU). On that basis, we'd do just fine. If they do choose to do it (which they won't, as their thinking is rooted in the protectionist niche groups such as the French cottage 'farmer' apparently conducting 'agriculture' in less than an acre) then we'd both benefit.

You did notice the examples - every single time a nation has done it, they've benefitted massively. That's no David Icke tinfoil hat wibble, but directly measurable results in reality, over a long duration. Who cares if anyone agrees when the results are clear to see?

You've also missed the point I made earlier - within the EU we have to compete with wildly different economies, some with vastly cheaper overheads, taxation, labour rates and limited labour protections. Those that couldn't compete have already moved or gone bust. Look at the supply chain Germany has built up - VAG has shifted a ton of manufacturing outside Germany into Eastern Europe as the fabled German productivity couldn't compete.

There's little to fear from the wider world - are we really going to attempt to compete with China in making paperclips? No.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

Sod the academic study, we can see the effects.

= Minford's a charlatan. I know it, they know it, I can't possibly admit it.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

Sod the academic study, we can see the effects.

= Minford's a charlatan. I know it, they know it, I can't possibly admit it.

Netherlands post independence, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong-Kong.

Lovely selective quoting though. Didn't possibly give the impression that you couldn't respond to the argument so resorted to ad hominems...

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

Netherlands post independence, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong-Kong.

Lovely selective quoting though. Didn't possibly give the impression that you couldn't respond to the argument so resorted to ad hominems...

Since that was in no way an ad hominem, you big girly snoiwflake, I was right to ignore the rest. You seem noticeably aggressive tonight. Hug?

Ok, maybe later. However, let's stay on the point, shall we?

Sway said:

However, you'll soon see why it's unlikely when ajd gets triggered by the mention of Minford...

I couldn't give a care for your apples & oranges examples of wholly disparate economic developments on different continents in different centuries, might as well discuss the economics of the Death Star for all the relevance it offers. But I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to offer a corroborating economic study backing Minford. Or are we to spend the evening accusing one another of being triggered? Sakes.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

Netherlands post independence, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong-Kong.

Lovely selective quoting though. Didn't possibly give the impression that you couldn't respond to the argument so resorted to ad hominems...

Since that was in no way an ad hominem, you big girly snoiwflake, I was right to ignore the rest. You seem noticeably aggressive tonight. Hug?

Ok, maybe later. However, let's stay on the point, shall we?

Sway said:

However, you'll soon see why it's unlikely when ajd gets triggered by the mention of Minford...

I couldn't give a care for your apples & oranges examples of wholly disparate economic developments on different continents in different centuries, might as well discuss the economics of the Death Star for all the relevance it offers. But I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to offer a corroborating economic study backing Minford. Or are we to spend the evening accusing one another of being triggered? Sakes.

How about this conclusion

"Lower trade costs give consumers access to cheaper imported goods and competition reduces the price of domestically-produced goods."

Comes from George Osbourne's treasury study. Hardy a brexiteer.

The fact that free trade has worked every time it's been tried, even across different centuries and disparate economies, actually backs up Minford's point.

[steveT350C]

///ajd said:

I'd love for the EU to offer us amazing tariff free frictionless customs trade. Like we have at the moment.

Quoted

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

Netherlands post independence, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong-Kong.

Lovely selective quoting though. Didn't possibly give the impression that you couldn't respond to the argument so resorted to ad hominems...

Since that was in no way an ad hominem, you big girly snoiwflake, I was right to ignore the rest. You seem noticeably aggressive tonight. Hug?

Ok, maybe later. However, let's stay on the point, shall we?

Sway said:

However, you'll soon see why it's unlikely when ajd gets triggered by the mention of Minford...

I couldn't give a care for your apples & oranges examples of wholly disparate economic developments on different continents in different centuries, might as well discuss the economics of the Death Star for all the relevance it offers. But I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to offer a corroborating economic study backing Minford. Or are we to spend the evening accusing one another of being triggered? Sakes.

Calling Minford a charlatan is the very definition of an ad hominem!

We're talking about global trade. The Dutch were doing that a few centuries ago, Singapore and Hong-Kong may be far away, but they are broadly comparable in that they are historic trading nations that are small in size, but punch well above their weight. Those outweigh any corroborative economic paper... You seem to think this means I couldn't find them - it's more a case of reality makes them irrelevant.

Oh, and you may have noticed that AJD took the comment as the tongue in cheek statement it was... Zero aggression here other than a few 'couldn't give a fks' about what others do within their own economies.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

///ajd said:

Nuanced indeed - do you actually think they will? And after how long leaving the UK in a one sided tariff wilderness? The intervening period would be very painful.

Why? Why would cheaper imports be painful? And if so, why would you want to even be in the EU? Surely you must want protectionist tariffs against the whole world.

///ajd said:

The point about whether he has wider support is important to see whether he is just a David Icke type outlier, or whether his views have widespread support.

I note KK seems to think trade deals are irrelevant as business just works around barriers. He doesn't seem to see the risk that businesses relocate out of the UK into the EU if we screw this up. They will indeed adapt, I suspect he doesn't have the vision or scale to move his operation between countries - others however do. And that's GDP.

You'd be hard pushed to find an economist who doesn't believe tariffs are bad.

Maybe this will help

https://player.vimeo.com/video/164108678

https://player.vimeo.com/video/164108677

In the first Mark explains the history of tariffs and why their use has changed from its initial purpose.
In the second he explains why free trade is good.

Now based on what he says, why would you want to impose tariffs on goods you don't make yourself? That's what we do as members of the EU because we are protecting other nations at the cost to our own.

Under the EU system its even worse than if we did this as a single nation state, because the revenue raised doesn't go to our government, it goes to the EU.

I am sure most of you know, but the chap is Mark Blyth, a political economist, he is the chap who predicted Brexit and Trump would win, he has chaired some very interesting meetings on world economics, the Euro, Greece etc over the years..

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 20th August 20:30

[Sway]

Sir Robert Peel
Adam Smith
John Stuart Mill
Pierre Mercier de la Riviere
Pierre Dupont de Nemours
Jacob Hornberger

Oh, and the IMF:

"Unilateral liberalisation would produce as high benefits for the economy as a whole as multilateral liberalisation" - Issues and Developments in International Trade Policy, December 1988.

However, as stated, I prefer to look at those that have actually done it. That's what put me off communism in my impressionable idealistic youth, and what convinces me (along with logic) that whilst I'd love a comprehensive FTA with the EU (and everyone else, in a full multilateral global agreement) I recognise the politics involved, so would be quite happy to exert what limited influence I can on our government to do it unilaterally...

[Eddie Strohacker]

So no then. You mocked ajd for being triggered by Minford but won't put up anyone who backs his analysis of Brexit, preferring instead to tread the well worn path of dissembling. I think we can move on, I'm done with this.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

So no then. You mocked ajd for being triggered by Minford but won't put up anyone who backs his analysis of Brexit, preferring instead to tread the well worn path of dissembling. I think we can move on, I'm done with this.

Minford's isn't an analysis of Brexit, that's far too narrow minded.

It's an analysis of free trade mechanisms, whether unilateral, bilateral or multilateral. That analysis can be applied to the UK's future direction, and is a discussion that we haven't been able to have for 40 years as it's not been within out purview.

[loafer123]

Eddie Strohacker said:

So no then. You mocked ajd for being triggered by Minford but won't put up anyone who backs his analysis of Brexit, preferring instead to tread the well worn path of dissembling. I think we can move on, I'm done with this.

Roger Bootle backs Minford. I know you want to run from the subject as it doesn't fit your narrative, but stay a while and think about it.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

Minford's isn't an analysis of Brexit, that's far too narrow minded.

It's an analysis of free trade mechanisms, whether unilateral, bilateral or multilateral. That analysis can be applied to the UK's future direction, and is a discussion that we haven't been able to have for 40 years as it's not been within out purview.

Your splitting hairs. Minford's report supports unilateral tariff removal & would destroy manufacturing jobs in the UK. You either support that or you know his work is flawed but can't say that because ytou've taken a position in the debate & well, we're back to ego. Have a look if you like, his work is not credible, you will do well outside of this website to find any support for it.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-brita...

[Eddie Strohacker]

loafer123 said:

Roger Bootle backs Minford. I know you want to run from the subject as it doesn't fit your narrative, but stay a while and think about it.

Does he? Link something for me then please.

[loafer123]

Eddie Strohacker said:

loafer123 said:

Roger Bootle backs Minford. I know you want to run from the subject as it doesn't fit your narrative, but stay a while and think about it.

Does he? Link something for me then please.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-19/u-k-cranks-up-the-pressure-on-eu-to-pivot-brexit-talks-to-trade

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4280229/households-w...

[anonymous-user]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Your splitting hairs. Minford's report supports unilateral tariff removal & would destroy manufacturing jobs in the UK. You either support that or you know his work is flawed but can't say that because ytou've taken a position in the debate & well, we're back to ego. Have a look if you like, his work is not credible, you will do well outside of this website to find any support for it.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-brita...

That's an LSE article written before the referendum vote during the height of project fear.

The LSE has hardly been balanced in its approach to Brexit.

What tariffs currently applied, if removed would destroy UK manufacturing?

[loafer123]

Eddie Strohacker said:

loafer123 said:

Roger Bootle backs Minford. I know you want to run from the subject as it doesn't fit your narrative, but stay a while and think about it.

Does he? Link something for me then please.

I suggest you also read this;

https://blogs.imf.org/2016/09/08/tariffs-do-more-h...

[Tuna]

Eddie Strohacker said:

So no then. You mocked ajd for being triggered by Minford but won't put up anyone who backs his analysis of Brexit, preferring instead to tread the well worn path of dissembling. I think we can move on, I'm done with this.

I quoted this in the original reply to your comments.

Andrew Walker said:

It is a counterintuitive idea, but actually the economics textbooks do provide some support for the idea of unilateral trade liberalisation.

This analysis suggests that removing trade barriers produces benefits for consumers and businesses buying components or raw materials that exceed the losses suffered in industries that face stiffer competition.

So the BBC's Economic correspondent is able to admit that this isn't exactly a minority idea.

[Eddie Strohacker]

loafer123 said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-19...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4280229/households-w...

You've linked a Sun article that quotes Minford & then Bootle. There is nothing backing up your assertion that Bootle backs Minford at all and it's the pissing Sun. You cannot be serious? Got anything that's written for grown ups?

[Eddie Strohacker]

Tuna said:

So the BBC's Economic correspondent is able to admit that this isn't exactly a minority idea.

Fine. Let's see the list of economists then? Clue: Journalist ≠ Economist.

Look, let's stop mucking about, I'm well aware there'll be people who think hard Brexit is just the ticket & I'm sure like loafer, you can find a comic or two that fails to make the point, but the facts are Miinford's work is both flawed & untestable because he won't release his data. It's debunked by most credible sources and I'm amused the usual headbangers have nothing better to do than to spend an entire Sunday flogging a dead horse because they're a) completely convinced of their view, irrespective of the evidence before them or b) really don't like me on a personal level or c) a+b. In which case, lol.