The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
Yes, I'm aware of the group. So let's take one last look at the work.
Minford accounted for fall in sterling when estimating competitiveness of exports while ignoring increased cost of inputs. Oops.
That's a pretty big oversight when you consider we, as an economy mostly deal with intermediary products:
He also assumes that UK exporters would face no new EU non-tariff barriers. Again, not very credible. So, all in all, I remain surprised his work is given the prominence it has, I can only ascribe it to a desire to provide some form of balance to the impending avalanche of f
k up we are about to experience. More on Economists for Brexit here:
Lifting import tariffs reduces the cost of inputs, that's kinda the point. Also, how would lifting import tariffs create WU non-tariff barriers?Minford accounted for fall in sterling when estimating competitiveness of exports while ignoring increased cost of inputs. Oops.
That's a pretty big oversight when you consider we, as an economy mostly deal with intermediary products:
He also assumes that UK exporters would face no new EU non-tariff barriers. Again, not very credible. So, all in all, I remain surprised his work is given the prominence it has, I can only ascribe it to a desire to provide some form of balance to the impending avalanche of f
k up we are about to experience. More on Economists for Brexit here:For some reason pic posting didn't work so check out the Express and Telegraph front pages at the beeb link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
don'tbesilly said:
It must be particularly galling for a business owner to be accused of lacking vision when the accuser knows nothing of the business, or the person behind it.
ISWYM but from the posts I've seen over the lifetime of these threads, which may be different to those you're referring to, it's not a sector-specific or business leader-specific type of vision that's being referred to.Contingency planning per se is a generic strategy type which translates to different things in different businesses led by different people. Given the timescale since the Referendum Act, there's been plenty of time for it.
turbobloke said:
don'tbesilly said:
It must be particularly galling for a business owner to be accused of lacking vision when the accuser knows nothing of the business, or the person behind it.
ISWYM but from the posts I've seen over the lifetime of these threads, which may be different to those you're referring to, it's not a sector-specific or business leader-specific type of vision that's being referred to.Contingency planning per se is a generic strategy type which translates to different things in different businesses led by different people. Given the timescale since the Referendum Act, there's been plenty of time for it.
Garvin said:
turbobloke said:
don'tbesilly said:
It must be particularly galling for a business owner to be accused of lacking vision when the accuser knows nothing of the business, or the person behind it.
ISWYM but from the posts I've seen over the lifetime of these threads, which may be different to those you're referring to, it's not a sector-specific or business leader-specific type of vision that's being referred to.Contingency planning per se is a generic strategy type which translates to different things in different businesses led by different people. Given the timescale since the Referendum Act, there's been plenty of time for it.
Its the way you tell them.
Mrr T said:
Garvin said:
turbobloke said:
don'tbesilly said:
It must be particularly galling for a business owner to be accused of lacking vision when the accuser knows nothing of the business, or the person behind it.
ISWYM but from the posts I've seen over the lifetime of these threads, which may be different to those you're referring to, it's not a sector-specific or business leader-specific type of vision that's being referred to.Contingency planning per se is a generic strategy type which translates to different things in different businesses led by different people. Given the timescale since the Referendum Act, there's been plenty of time for it.
Its the way you tell them.
Dr Jekyll said:
Very much my thinking. (Or Brexiteer headbanging if you're a Remainer). I'd welcome someone actually critiquing the logic rather than arguing semantics or the accuracy of forecasts. The principle seems sound that we should move away from the sort of complex market manipulation that runs rampant these days. Eddie? ///ajd? Care to discuss the principle rather than flinging insults?turbobloke said:
For some reason pic posting didn't work so check out the Express and Telegraph front pages at the beeb link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
To be fair most of the headlines in that link were a mixed bag with only the Express and Telegraph mentioning Brexit...the others evidently felt other things (Di and Dodi (FFS), Charles, the benefits system etc etc) deserved top billing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
Murph7355 said:
turbobloke said:
For some reason pic posting didn't work so check out the Express and Telegraph front pages at the beeb link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
To be fair most of the headlines in that link were a mixed bag with only the Express and Telegraph mentioning Brexit...the others evidently felt other things (Di and Dodi (FFS), Charles, the benefits system etc etc) deserved top billing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
Reporting on economic consequences of brexit had a part in it.
Mrr T said:
KrissKross said:
Mrr T said:
Its the way you tell them.
You know, another day, another dollar.
Murph7355 said:
turbobloke said:
For some reason pic posting didn't work so check out the Express and Telegraph front pages at the beeb link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
To be fair most of the headlines in that link were a mixed bag with only the Express and Telegraph mentioning Brexit...the others evidently felt other things (Di and Dodi (FFS), Charles, the benefits system etc etc) deserved top billing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
The Guardian and Mirror weren't headlining these stories on their front pages today.
The talks look like they'll hit a brick wall anyway, if only for the Germans to try and get the leader of the EU re-elected.
Mrr T said:
KrissKross said:
Mrr T said:
Its the way you tell them.
Tuna said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Very much my thinking. (Or Brexiteer headbanging if you're a Remainer). I'd welcome someone actually critiquing the logic rather than arguing semantics or the accuracy of forecasts. The principle seems sound that we should move away from the sort of complex market manipulation that runs rampant these days. Eddie? ///ajd? Care to discuss the principle rather than flinging insults?As quoted, the article admits: "Of course, there would be some losers from free trade among consumers as well as producers."
The million, or billion, dollar question is are there more winners than losers, and what price to the economy of creating losers, and what pain will they suffer, as hopefully they eventually transition to winners.
Then, it states: "Finally, what about things that other countries can only produce more cheaply using large subsidies or some other undesirable advantage? This, admittedly, is more difficult. Some argue that it would then be sensible to protect domestic producers with subsidies of our own."
This can be tricky, though subsidy can be providing in ways through infrastructure and training investment, which could be read as the case for Nissan.
It therefore admits that subsidising domestic producers may be required after all, and at the end "Indeed, both Prof Dowd and Prof Minford accept that multilateral trade deals may be optimal in many areas".
Even they admit therefore unilateral tariff dropping is not the universal or best answer.
Maybe its true that things will even out, but for a generation we may well see some very trying times if we go for a hard exit.
///ajd said:
Tuna said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Very much my thinking. (Or Brexiteer headbanging if you're a Remainer). I'd welcome someone actually critiquing the logic rather than arguing semantics or the accuracy of forecasts. The principle seems sound that we should move away from the sort of complex market manipulation that runs rampant these days. Eddie? ///ajd? Care to discuss the principle rather than flinging insults?As quoted, the article admits: "Of course, there would be some losers from free trade among consumers as well as producers."
The million, or billion, dollar question is are there more winners than losers, and what price to the economy of creating losers, and what pain will they suffer, as hopefully they eventually transition to winners.
Then, it states: "Finally, what about things that other countries can only produce more cheaply using large subsidies or some other undesirable advantage? This, admittedly, is more difficult. Some argue that it would then be sensible to protect domestic producers with subsidies of our own."
This can be tricky, though subsidy can be providing in ways through infrastructure and training investment, which could be read as the case for Nissan.
It therefore admits that subsidising domestic producers may be required after all, and at the end "Indeed, both Prof Dowd and Prof Minford accept that multilateral trade deals may be optimal in many areas".
Even they admit therefore unilateral tariff dropping is not the universal or best answer.
Maybe its true that things will even out, but for a generation we may well see some very trying times if we go for a hard exit.
Just as German industry has farmed out tonnes of their activity to EE.
///ajd said:
We can probably boil the argument down to the winners and losers.
As quoted, the article admits: "Of course, there would be some losers from free trade among consumers as well as producers."
The million, or billion, dollar question is are there more winners than losers, and what price to the economy of creating losers, and what pain will they suffer, as hopefully they eventually transition to winners.
Firstly - thanks for a good answer. It's welcome in this thread As quoted, the article admits: "Of course, there would be some losers from free trade among consumers as well as producers."
The million, or billion, dollar question is are there more winners than losers, and what price to the economy of creating losers, and what pain will they suffer, as hopefully they eventually transition to winners.
You are of course right, and ignoring the people who come out worse has to be avoided.
As for trying to predict the outcome, I think we have to look at the economies that have low tariff trade arrangements and see how they have benefited or suffered.
///ajd said:
Then, it states: "Finally, what about things that other countries can only produce more cheaply using large subsidies or some other undesirable advantage? This, admittedly, is more difficult. Some argue that it would then be sensible to protect domestic producers with subsidies of our own."
This can be tricky, though subsidy can be providing in ways through infrastructure and training investment, which could be read as the case for Nissan.
It therefore admits that subsidising domestic producers may be required after all, and at the end "Indeed, both Prof Dowd and Prof Minford accept that multilateral trade deals may be optimal in many areas".
Even they admit therefore unilateral tariff dropping is not the universal or best answer.
Maybe its true that things will even out, but for a generation we may well see some very trying times if we go for a hard exit.
I don't think anyone really thinks there is a single, simple policy that can be universally applied. The point here is trying to make the big shift in thinking - that maintaining tariffs is counter productive - and acknowledge that the benefits of dropping them bring other responsibilities.This can be tricky, though subsidy can be providing in ways through infrastructure and training investment, which could be read as the case for Nissan.
It therefore admits that subsidising domestic producers may be required after all, and at the end "Indeed, both Prof Dowd and Prof Minford accept that multilateral trade deals may be optimal in many areas".
Even they admit therefore unilateral tariff dropping is not the universal or best answer.
Maybe its true that things will even out, but for a generation we may well see some very trying times if we go for a hard exit.
When it comes to the case for preserving the status quo, anyone saying there's a magic way to stop industries changing, exchange rates fluctuating or trading arrangements shifting is lying. Trying to keep things the same by preserving existing tariff arrangements is ignoring the fact that everything else is going to change - from our agricultural industries through to trade routes.
It does come down to different perspectives, and here is where economics is *not* a science. There just isn't a right answer, except for after the fact when every economist suddenly has 20-20 hindsight - usually starting with "we now know which assumptions we made were wrong". So I can understand people wanting different approaches. Personally, I like minimal intervention in markets, and low tariffs come naturally from that.
Just a quick question, in order to trade we have to have something to sell. when you look at most companies they seem to buy a heck of a lot or out source overseas. Now as we don't seem to have much of a manufacturing industry and what we have seems to be owned by other countries so what are we going to be selling, and how are we going to keep the money in this country rather than offshore?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff