BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Alejandrosdog

These days theyd launch a turtle. Theyre all going to die anyway.

TheBigBean

DrHaggis wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

That's deterministic chaos. Which doesn't quite work, because reality is quantum, and quantum theory is probabilistic. So even in perfeclty defined, well-behaved systems, you never really know*** what you will measure next.

It looks like NI is about to get Schrödinger's custom union, so a bit quantum mechanics might help.

Alejandrosdog

Lets all start to chant!

BORIS BORIS BORIS

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

What's that?

The dog. First animal sent into space. She didn't make it back to Earth.

An early example of socialist inefficiency?

If you recall it was a race. Arguably it was the USSR winning the first few rounds that motivated the Apollo programme.

Now we are still using Russian technology to get into space.

rjsterry

Unintentionally hilarious.

Johnson wrote:

With the greatest possible respect I think, look at everything I’ve said previously. I think you can draw your own conclusions from that.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I think it's very easy to throw your hands up and say "there are too many variables; it can't be done". It may be the case, but I would guess that neither of us have looked at the mechanics of the modelling NIESR used. At the very least a set of figures showing an order of magnitude difference between the impact of signing new trade deals versus leaving an existing one demands further investigation.

If these figures have a low confidence of accuracy, then claims of windfalls from new trade deals should equally be treated as not reliable - the contrary argument falls away as well. Those promoting an independent trade policy have no idea either.

Have a look at the number of variables in complex real world systems where chaos theory applies - e.g. weather systems, financial markets. The permutations are mind boggling. Also part of this is sensitivity to initial conditions, where a seemingly insignificant difference at the start is amplified over time. And in economic models we are also trying to predict future human behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, but my own experience of forecasting in a business environment bears this out quite nicely in the real world.

Sure. I understand the issue, and have done enough of my own projections to understand the gap between prediction and reality. Taking the weather analogy, while we might not be able to give an exact forecast for January 3rd 2021, we can give probabilities for various options. There are patterns and their are more and less likely outcomes.

Agree but that still makes it largely an educated guess. Have a read of the book if youre interested in this sort of thing.

Stevo_666

DrHaggis wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I think it's very easy to throw your hands up and say "there are too many variables; it can't be done". It may be the case, but I would guess that neither of us have looked at the mechanics of the modelling NIESR used. At the very least a set of figures showing an order of magnitude difference between the impact of signing new trade deals versus leaving an existing one demands further investigation.

If these figures have a low confidence of accuracy, then claims of windfalls from new trade deals should equally be treated as not reliable - the contrary argument falls away as well. Those promoting an independent trade policy have no idea either.

Have a look at the number of variables in complex real world systems where chaos theory applies - e.g. weather systems, financial markets. The permutations are mind boggling. Also part of this is sensitivity to initial conditions, where a seemingly insignificant difference at the start is amplified over time. And in economic models we are also trying to predict future human behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, but my own experience of forecasting in a business environment bears this out quite nicely in the real world.

A system being chaotic doesn't mean you can't do accurate forecasts. See weather vs. climate. And if you don't like climate because your political bias, then look at paleoclimate. Yes, small noise will cause exponential divergence, but that may only be important if you care about the details (e.g. next Sunday the hailstorm is in Windsor rather than Kingston). You can account for this variability, to a point, by analysing a set of nearby initial conditions, which would give you a better idea of what to expect, and what the odds really are. What's more, even in chaotic systems, viral theorem applies, so the envelopes of solutions have to be within a certain set of parameters. There are also basins of attraction, which you may be able to model. And of course, as time goes by, the new data can be fed back into the analysis to filter out the more unlikely paths in phase space.

Financial forecasts are a different beast, of course, as we now depend on the human factor.

You make some fair points about weather and climate etc Haggis. I was talking about weather in that case.

And getting back to financial end economic forecasts, agree - which goes back to my point that long range forecast of that type are never going to be accurate.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I think it's very easy to throw your hands up and say "there are too many variables; it can't be done". It may be the case, but I would guess that neither of us have looked at the mechanics of the modelling NIESR used. At the very least a set of figures showing an order of magnitude difference between the impact of signing new trade deals versus leaving an existing one demands further investigation.

If these figures have a low confidence of accuracy, then claims of windfalls from new trade deals should equally be treated as not reliable - the contrary argument falls away as well. Those promoting an independent trade policy have no idea either.

Have a look at the number of variables in complex real world systems where chaos theory applies - e.g. weather systems, financial markets. The permutations are mind boggling. Also part of this is sensitivity to initial conditions, where a seemingly insignificant difference at the start is amplified over time. And in economic models we are also trying to predict future human behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, but my own experience of forecasting in a business environment bears this out quite nicely in the real world.

A system being chaotic doesn't mean you can't do accurate forecasts. See weather vs. climate. And if you don't like climate because your political bias, then look at paleoclimate. Yes, small noise will cause exponential divergence, but that may only be important if you care about the details (e.g. next Sunday the hailstorm is in Windsor rather than Kingston). You can account for this variability, to a point, by analysing a set of nearby initial conditions, which would give you a better idea of what to expect, and what the odds really are. What's more, even in chaotic systems, viral theorem applies, so the envelopes of solutions have to be within a certain set of parameters. There are also basins of attraction, which you may be able to model. And of course, as time goes by, the new data can be fed back into the analysis to filter out the more unlikely paths in phase space.

Financial forecasts are a different beast, of course, as we now depend on the human factor.

You make some fair points about weather and climate etc Haggis. I was talking about weather in that case.

And getting back to financial end economic forecasts, agree - which goes back to my point that long range forecast of that type are never going to be accurate.

But you are arguing that unknown unknowns will happen which will impact the outcome that was forecast.

What if you are forecasting the impact of a 10% reduction in GBP, or removing yourself from the CU/SM, you must agree that these are all possible to model?

surrey_commuter

From a Brexiteer point of view isn’t Boris’s deal worse than May’s. If Irish border is to be same as Dover-Calais then we will be somewhere between EEA and full membership.

I am assuming Farage is staying quiet as it gets us out of the EU and allows him to tear into the Tories.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I think it's very easy to throw your hands up and say "there are too many variables; it can't be done". It may be the case, but I would guess that neither of us have looked at the mechanics of the modelling NIESR used. At the very least a set of figures showing an order of magnitude difference between the impact of signing new trade deals versus leaving an existing one demands further investigation.

If these figures have a low confidence of accuracy, then claims of windfalls from new trade deals should equally be treated as not reliable - the contrary argument falls away as well. Those promoting an independent trade policy have no idea either.

Have a look at the number of variables in complex real world systems where chaos theory applies - e.g. weather systems, financial markets. The permutations are mind boggling. Also part of this is sensitivity to initial conditions, where a seemingly insignificant difference at the start is amplified over time. And in economic models we are also trying to predict future human behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, but my own experience of forecasting in a business environment bears this out quite nicely in the real world.

A system being chaotic doesn't mean you can't do accurate forecasts. See weather vs. climate. And if you don't like climate because your political bias, then look at paleoclimate. Yes, small noise will cause exponential divergence, but that may only be important if you care about the details (e.g. next Sunday the hailstorm is in Windsor rather than Kingston). You can account for this variability, to a point, by analysing a set of nearby initial conditions, which would give you a better idea of what to expect, and what the odds really are. What's more, even in chaotic systems, viral theorem applies, so the envelopes of solutions have to be within a certain set of parameters. There are also basins of attraction, which you may be able to model. And of course, as time goes by, the new data can be fed back into the analysis to filter out the more unlikely paths in phase space.

Financial forecasts are a different beast, of course, as we now depend on the human factor.

You make some fair points about weather and climate etc Haggis. I was talking about weather in that case.

And getting back to financial end economic forecasts, agree - which goes back to my point that long range forecast of that type are never going to be accurate.

But you are arguing that unknown unknowns will happen which will impact the outcome that was forecast.

What if you are forecasting the impact of a 10% reduction in GBP, or removing yourself from the CU/SM, you must agree that these are all possible to model?

Sure you can model the individual factors that feed into the result, but the overall result will still be unpredictable.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

There is a nice chaos quote on wikipedia.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I think it's very easy to throw your hands up and say "there are too many variables; it can't be done". It may be the case, but I would guess that neither of us have looked at the mechanics of the modelling NIESR used. At the very least a set of figures showing an order of magnitude difference between the impact of signing new trade deals versus leaving an existing one demands further investigation.

If these figures have a low confidence of accuracy, then claims of windfalls from new trade deals should equally be treated as not reliable - the contrary argument falls away as well. Those promoting an independent trade policy have no idea either.

Have a look at the number of variables in complex real world systems where chaos theory applies - e.g. weather systems, financial markets. The permutations are mind boggling. Also part of this is sensitivity to initial conditions, where a seemingly insignificant difference at the start is amplified over time. And in economic models we are also trying to predict future human behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, but my own experience of forecasting in a business environment bears this out quite nicely in the real world.

A system being chaotic doesn't mean you can't do accurate forecasts. See weather vs. climate. And if you don't like climate because your political bias, then look at paleoclimate. Yes, small noise will cause exponential divergence, but that may only be important if you care about the details (e.g. next Sunday the hailstorm is in Windsor rather than Kingston). You can account for this variability, to a point, by analysing a set of nearby initial conditions, which would give you a better idea of what to expect, and what the odds really are. What's more, even in chaotic systems, viral theorem applies, so the envelopes of solutions have to be within a certain set of parameters. There are also basins of attraction, which you may be able to model. And of course, as time goes by, the new data can be fed back into the analysis to filter out the more unlikely paths in phase space.

Financial forecasts are a different beast, of course, as we now depend on the human factor.

You make some fair points about weather and climate etc Haggis. I was talking about weather in that case.

And getting back to financial end economic forecasts, agree - which goes back to my point that long range forecast of that type are never going to be accurate.

But you are arguing that unknown unknowns will happen which will impact the outcome that was forecast.

What if you are forecasting the impact of a 10% reduction in GBP, or removing yourself from the CU/SM, you must agree that these are all possible to model?

Sure you can model the individual factors that feed into the result, but the overall result will still be unpredictable.

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

cycleclinic

So talking about growth misses the point. If staying the EU is about maxamising ecomonic growth and hoping that will magically fix our issues is again putting too much faith in our current system which has delivered this mess.

I wish the remain side stopped talking about growth and started looking at how we address the systemic failures in our system of goverment to try allow to the sides to rub up against each other without the country being capsized.

morstar

thecycleclinic wrote:

So talking about growth misses the point. If staying the EU is about maxamising ecomonic growth and hoping that will magically fix our issues is again putting too much faith in our current system which has delivered this mess.

I wish the remain side stopped talking about growth and started looking at how we address the systemic failures in our system of goverment to try allow to the sides to rub up against each other without the country being capsized.

So don't describe it as the remain side then.
I voted remain and really wish we weren't leaving but, like many, I accepted the result. What pains me is the goalposts moving post referendum. If an agreement along the lines of the leave campaign position had been put to parliament, we'd have left a year ago.
The most fervent remainers and no dealers are as bad as each other, never going to compromise and should not be listened to.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

Not sure what you mean, its a valid point so I'll just take you have no reply.

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

Alejandrosdog

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

What current deal is that?

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

robert88

Steve is the only real politician on here. If only that was a compliment, we wouldn't be in this mess.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

I think you are Stevo.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

Stevo, I think you have just melted a snowflake

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

I think you are Stevo.

Look who's popped up now to get the wrong end of the stick as well

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Steve is the only real politician on here. If only that was a compliment, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I don't see myself as a politician, just someone who doesn't have a lot of time for idiots, whingers and bullsh1tters - which I'm sure you already realise by now

Stevo_666

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

Nope - not getting on the merry go round today thanks

Stevo, I think you have just melted a snowflake

Oddly enough, I was just trying to have a sensible debate on an interesting if slightly theoretical subject. Maybe I'm just misunderstood?

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But the Brexit forecasts were saying that growth will be 0.5% lower post Brexit,

And...?

That's an educated guess. And as I've said before, if we do leave we will never know what future growth would be if we hadn't left as that will be a non-existent timeline. So you are comparing an educated guess to another educated guess.

So would you except growth over the new few years to be greater with a no deal brexit or with staying in the EU ?

You are missing the point here.

It is exactly the point, do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current deal ?

No it is not. Read my posts again and this time pay attention to the timescales I am referring to above

The debate on the likely short term impacts have already been done to death , so use the search function for that.

I thought, going by your previous posts you would keep dodging the question

Oh, well looks like there is such a thing as a stupid question after all. You've already had it explained to you where you missed the point :roll:

Very strange for some one so out spoken with strong views you can't answer a very simple question and are doing anything to avoid answering the very simple question , Do you expect better growth with a no deal brexit than the current EU deal ?

So far you have tried insults, sarcasm, saying the question is stupid, saying you have already answered it to avoid giving an answer, it would be much easier to simply answer the question, not sure why you haven't by now it is a very simple question in a very sensible debate.