Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

Vanden Saab said:

Did you read what you quoted?

Yes.

Nowhere does it support your primary assertion that the primary factor behind the 4% is the reduction in immigration.

I'd love to understand how and why you think the quoted section supports the argument you've made, because from my perspective the fact that 2/5 of the economic impact occurred before the TCA came into force seems is of no real relevance (partially because 2/5 is not a majority, but also because it in no way precludes future access to the SM being a factor).

Concerns about single market access aren't mutually incompatible with investor reticence. In fact, they're a major contributing factor to it. To a great degree the two are inseparable.

Once again you try to put words in my mouth, nowhere did i say primary that is your wrong translation neither did i say that immigration was the single factor. That is also you incorrect reading of what i said. 1.6% just on investment and the increase rather than decrease due to their estimate of immigration being so far out would combined be more than half the 4%. as the OBR says...

OBR said:

In our economy forecast, we assume that this reduces the size of the population and total employment in 2024-25 by 0.4 per cent as it reduces net inward migration. This reduction is concentrated among people on lower-than-average earnings reflecting the £25,600 salary cap, so the effect on nominal GDP in 2024-25 is smaller at 0.3 per cent

I will stick with my statement, that you once again snipped, that immigration and investment account for much of the 4%.

[Wills2]

More winning at Dover, it's embarrassing what a joke we have become as a country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65143093

[Mortarboard]

The usual mob still repeating their failed attempts at trying to make the 4% dissappear I see.

The obr reports are based on a model will over 600 factors (I've linked to this before). Their model isn't some secret, it's published on their website for God's sake.
It's regularly reviewed and adjusted (where necessary), is critiqued by third parties, and checked against actual results.
Evidence to the contrary? Zero.
Its flat earthen territory.

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Wills2 said:

More winning at Dover, it's embarrassing what a joke we have become as a country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65143093

You would think the French would have more than one person on duty the day before the Easter break begins especially as the exact same thing happened last year...

[Mortarboard]

Wills2 said:

More winning at Dover, it's embarrassing what a joke we have become as a country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65143093

Are you sure the delays aren't from immigration and inward investment or something?

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

The usual mob still repeating their failed attempts at trying to make the 4% dissappear I see.

The obr reports are based on a model will over 600 factors (I've linked to this before). Their model isn't some secret, it's published on their website for God's sake.
It's regularly reviewed and adjusted (where necessary), is critiqued by third parties, and checked against actual results.
Evidence to the contrary? Zero.
Its flat earthen territory.

M.

This model?

OBR said:

More importantly, the model is a computational tool – it is the forecaster using it, applying judgements, that bears responsibility for producing a coherent forecast. That means that two forecasters using exactly the same model could end up with very different forecasts because the judgements underpinning them differ

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

Once again you try to put words in my mouth, nowhere did i say primary that is your wrong translation neither did i say that immigration was the single factor.

Let's revisit your post.

Vanden Saab said:

According to the OBR it seems much of the suggested 4% comes from an expected reduction in net migration along with a reduction in business investment.

"Much of the suggested 4% comes from an expected reduction in migration". That's how you chose to lead.

"Along with a reduction is business investment". This reads as a secondary factor.

It very much reads as you making migration the primary factor.

Vanden Saab said:

That is also you incorrect reading of what i said.

It's a reading based on what you said.

Vanden Saab said:

1.6% just on investment and the increase rather than decrease due to their estimate of immigration being so far out would combined be more than half the 4%.

On what planet does this even begin to make sense

Vanden Saab said:

This model?

OBR said:

More importantly, the model is a computational tool – it is the forecaster using it, applying judgements, that bears responsibility for producing a coherent forecast. That means that two forecasters using exactly the same model could end up with very different forecasts because the judgements underpinning them differ

Are you trying to make a point? It seems like you think you are, but you don't appear to be.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 1st April 14:09

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

Mortarboard said:

The usual mob still repeating their failed attempts at trying to make the 4% dissappear I see.

The obr reports are based on a model will over 600 factors (I've linked to this before). Their model isn't some secret, it's published on their website for God's sake.
It's regularly reviewed and adjusted (where necessary), is critiqued by third parties, and checked against actual results.
Evidence to the contrary? Zero.
Its flat earthen territory.

M.

This model?

OBR said:

More importantly, the model is a computational tool – it is the forecaster using it, applying judgements, that bears responsibility for producing a coherent forecast. That means that two forecasters using exactly the same model could end up with very different forecasts because the judgements underpinning them differ

You do know forecasts have ranges? And that those ranges and basis for same are included in the reports? Which is what's referred to in your snip of a quote?

If there's such a wild guesstimate as you infer, you'll have no problem linking to a review or two showing how and why the obr reports are inaccurate? Surely?
No?
Bueller?
Buehler?

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

Mortarboard said:

The usual mob still repeating their failed attempts at trying to make the 4% dissappear I see.

The obr reports are based on a model will over 600 factors (I've linked to this before). Their model isn't some secret, it's published on their website for God's sake.
It's regularly reviewed and adjusted (where necessary), is critiqued by third parties, and checked against actual results.
Evidence to the contrary? Zero.
Its flat earthen territory.

M.

This model?

OBR said:

More importantly, the model is a computational tool – it is the forecaster using it, applying judgements, that bears responsibility for producing a coherent forecast. That means that two forecasters using exactly the same model could end up with very different forecasts because the judgements underpinning them differ

You do know forecasts have ranges? And that those ranges and basis for same are included in the reports? Which is what's referred to in your snip of a quote?

If there's such a wild guesstimate as you infer, you'll have no problem linking to a review or two showing how and why the obr reports are inaccurate? Surely?
No?
Bueller?
Buehler?

M.

Already done but we are quibbling or something... I give up, OBR are perfect and never get anything wrong, ever well apart from all the things they get constantly wrong as shown by their constant revisions. According to them a reduction of 100,000 people is worth 0.3% of GDP.
It is pretty simple to work out what that single error might do to GDP.

OBR said:

Since the introduction of the new post-Brexit migration regime, net inward migration has significantly exceeded the levels assumed in our forecasts. In the year to June 2022, the ONS estimates that 504,000 long-term net migrants arrived in the UK, twice the average numbers seen between 2010 and 2020 and more than triple our initial assumption for the long-run levels of net migration under the new visa regime. While net EU migration is now negative at minus 51,000, this has been more than offset by a large increase in non-EU net migration to 509,000.

[turbobloke]

Hilarious, the 4% is a modelled prediction in various locations, it can't disappear. Just as comments such as the other nonsense of 'no contentious aspects of brexit economic models' is on the internet forever since it's been quoted (rendering deletion ineffective). One of the main issues with that fictioncasting as per all the others, is a key assumption underpinning most of the other incomplete and inadequate assumptions - namely, that of rationality. Models assume that politicians, businesses and individuals make rational decisions based on complete information and using a level of understanding commensurate with the modeller and the model. That's a right royal hoot, as in reality, politicians people and corporates are well-known for making decisions which are neither rational nor based on complete information, with far from perfect understanding all round. The irony is that this affliction is attributed to brexit by remainers but with the exception of modelling that produces eloquent erudite gigo which suits their moment.

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

OBR are perfect and never get anything wrong

B-b-b-but science was wrong before!!

Vanden Saab said:

According to them a reduction of 100,000 people is worth 0.3% of GDP. It is pretty simple to work out what that single error might do to GDP.

Only if you make the woefully misguided assumption that the model treats all classes of migrant as having the same economic value.

turbobloke said:

Hilarious, the 4% is a modelled prediction

One you cannot, despite being challenged multiple times, find one single methodological or evidence based flaw in.

Hilarious indeed. As is the whinging, breathless, scattergun nonsense that comprises the rest of your post.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 1st April 14:45

[Mortarboard]

turbobloke said:

One of the main issues with that fictioncasting as per all the others, is a key assumption underpinning most of the other incomplete and inadequate assumptions - namely, that of rationality. Models assume that politicians, businesses and individuals make rational decisions based on complete information and using a level of understanding commensurate with the modeller and the model.

bks. That's precisely what isn't used in models. Population response is.

Besides, errors in a comparative model tend to cancel, as the same errors are present on both sides of the comparator.

Ate you sure you're in academia? Or do you play one on TV?
Because this is basic stuff (statistical testing)

M.

[HM-2]

Wait, Turbobloke has claimed to be in academia?!





That has all the merit of me claiming I'm Jesus Christ.

[Mortarboard]

HM-2 said:

Wait, Turbobloke has claimed to be in academia?!



That has all the merit of me claiming I'm Jesus Christ.

Indeed, it's why he was flouting his statistical model stair dominating knowledge (something about a social science student dissertation proposal and parametric/non-parametric analysis etc. although fk knows why non-parametrical analysis would apply to anything in the social science world at undergrad level, but anyhoo) Did you not notice the use of terms like "gigo"? Why explain something when you can use shorthand instead
(garbage in - garbage out)

The OBR modelling (a comparative model, as far as brexit/no brexit analysis is concerned) can be easily explained in something far more digestible to those not used to dealing with modelling/statistical analysis. Let's face it, for most folks, the fact that model errors can be cancelled out isn't immediately apparent.

Lets say I have a heffalump, and I have it entered into the heffalump stting contest (biggest turd wins, a bit like PH).
So monitoring it's turds is important to me. So I need something to measure them with, to see it the turds are bigger when fed the green leaves, or the brown leaves.
I only have a stty measuring scale, that over-reads by 100% (1 pound reads as 2, 2 pounds reads as 4, etc)
Green leaves & brown leaves are my variable
My heffalump is the object of study
My scales are my analytical model

But I'm not interested in the absolute weight of my heffalump turds - just which leaves to feed it. A comparative analysis.

So in the first month, my heffalup gets green leaves. I weigh the turds with the wonky scale
Second month, my heffalump gets brown leaves. I weight the turds with the wonky scale

I find out the turds are twice as heavy when I feed the heffalump green leaves. So green leaves it gets for the competition (applied decision based on modelling analysis)

The absolute weight of the turds? Inaccurate as all hell.
The comparative weight of the turds? 100% accurate. (the error cancels out, regardless of what it is)

The OBR is a comparative analysis (brexit vs no-brexit). Result shows 4% less. Not X.XXXX billion, 4%.

It's accurate.

Heffalump - UK economy
Scale - OBR Comparative Model of brexit/no-brexit
Turds - UK GDP
Green leaves/Brown leaves - Brexit-no-brexit

M.

[Vanden Saab]

HM-2 said:

Vanden Saab said:

OBR are perfect and never get anything wrong

B-b-b-but science was wrong before!!

Vanden Saab said:

According to them a reduction of 100,000 people is worth 0.3% of GDP. It is pretty simple to work out what that single error might do to GDP.

Only if you make the woefully misguided assumption that the model treats all classes of migrant as having the same economic value.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 1st April 14:45

They allowed for the 'new' immigrants to earn more due to the immigration controls rather than FoM. and downgraded the drop in GDP to -0.3% for a roughly 100,000 reduction rather than a higher negative figure.. As it was a 300,000 increase rather than a 100,000 reduction it is relatively easy to see the difference it would make to GDP. It will be interesting to see the figure they produce next time. I fully expect their 4% to reduce year on year as they are forced to revise it time and time again based on what is actually happening in the UK.

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

They allowed for the 'new' immigrants to earn more due to the immigration controls rather than FoM. and downgraded the drop in GDP to -0.3% for a roughly 100,000 reduction rather than a higher negative figure.. As it was a 300,000 increase rather than a 100,000 reduction it is relatively easy to see the difference it would make to GDP.

What percentage of that increase is Ukrainian refugees (mostly women and children) or asylum seekers, who are often not economically active for significant periods and typically have the lowest cost to economic value production of any class of immigrant? What about the significant contribution of large increases in migration for study, which again is not a significant net productivity contributor?

The basic assumptions underpinning your argument seem rather flawed. If the 300,000 extra migrants were all people coming in under the new high skill and high income focused immigration system then it would be a reasonable assumption but a significant majority of this excess doesn't remotely fit that description.

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

They allowed for the 'new' immigrants to earn more due to the immigration controls rather than FoM. and downgraded the drop in GDP to -0.3% for a roughly 100,000 reduction rather than a higher negative figure.. As it was a 300,000 increase rather than a 100,000 reduction it is relatively easy to see the difference it would make to GDP. It will be interesting to see the figure they produce next time. I fully expect their 4% to reduce year on year as they are forced to revise it time and time again based on what is actually happening in the UK.

Nope. That's not what the model does

That's your interpretation of what the model does

There's 600 factors in the model.

It's not "a refugee iz worth x, times 500,000, simples!"

M.

[Vanden Saab]

Mortarboard said:

Vanden Saab said:

They allowed for the 'new' immigrants to earn more due to the immigration controls rather than FoM. and downgraded the drop in GDP to -0.3% for a roughly 100,000 reduction rather than a higher negative figure.. As it was a 300,000 increase rather than a 100,000 reduction it is relatively easy to see the difference it would make to GDP. It will be interesting to see the figure they produce next time. I fully expect their 4% to reduce year on year as they are forced to revise it time and time again based on what is actually happening in the UK.

Nope. That's not what the model does

That's your interpretation of what the model does

There's 600 factors in the model.

It's not "a refugee iz worth x, times 500,000, simples!"

M.

Not my interpretation the OBRs...

OBR said:

In our economy forecast, we assume that this reduces the size of the population and total employment in 2024-25 by 0.4 per cent as it reduces net inward migration. This reduction is concentrated among people on lower-than-average earnings reflecting the £25,600 salary cap, so the effect on nominal GDP in 2024-25 is smaller at 0.3 per cent.

It seems it really is that simple, more people more GDP less people less GDP...Another Brexit bonus in that the immigrants now coming to work earn more money and therefore add more to UK GDP than was the case with FoM. they even point this out in their summary...

[HM-2]

Vanden Saab said:

Not my interpretation the OBRs..

I have no idea how you've read that in the way you have, because what you've quoted in no way, shape or form supports what you've argued it does. In fact, the section you quite seems to conclusively contradict your read.

[Mortarboard]

Vanden Saab said:

It seems it really is that simple, more people more GDP less people less GDP...Another Brexit bonus in that the immigrants now coming to work earn more money and therefore add more to UK GDP than was the case with FoM. they even point this out in their summary...

Uk net immigration currently runs at +500k p.a.
Which wouldn't result in a net gdp loss of 4%.

M.