BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

This is plainly b@ll@cks

No it's not. Tell me why you think it is.

Because, re #2, you can.

It’s a bit like if I start smashing down 15-20,000 calories a day and my Dr says “you’ll get seriously fat and be unhealthy if you do” and you go “well we have no idea if he’d have put on weight had he not massively increase his calories”.

What the dr can’t do is predict how much weight I will put on to the kilo, nor can she predict when I have a heart attack.

Doesn’t mean the doc is wrong, nor was her prediction.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.

Maybe we are getting the point, however many times you claim the contrary. Just a thought.

Or maybe not. Or maybe you don't want to understand because you really want to be able to say in 10 years time that nasty Brexit was so harmful?

Try reading the book I recommended. It's quite intellectual and theoretical so should be right up your street.

I might well get that book, thanks, but your denial that there can be any way of assessing Brexit's economic ramifications isn't convincing at all. After all, you've been trumpeting how much it might benefit the UK - how would you measure that?

Here you go:
https://goodreads.com/book/show/64582.Chaos

Given what I've said, I can never claim to be able to quantify those benefits. I have tried to put them into perspective relative to the loss of our EU arrangements but that's as far as I can reasonably go.

Stevo_666

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

cheers - just me not understanding. How are you judging whether the economy has done well post-Brexit?

You can judge it by growth. You can judge it by business sentiment. You can judge it by employment levels, GDP, happiness, etc.

None of these need to be comparative in relation to other countries.

Biggest test would be does the global financial and business community have confidence in the UK?

Compared to...?

Which is a key part of my point.

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

This is plainly b@ll@cks

No it's not. Tell me why you think it is.

Because, re #2, you can.

It’s a bit like if I start smashing down 15-20,000 calories a day and my Dr says “you’ll get seriously fat and be unhealthy if you do” and you go “well we have no idea if he’d have put on weight had he not massively increase his calories”.

What the dr can’t do is predict how much weight I will put on to the kilo, nor can she predict when I have a heart attack.

Doesn’t mean the doc is wrong, nor was her prediction.

No but you can never prove it. Therefore, it's worthless.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

It is only Steveo and Coopster who think the ref has had no impact on the UK economy, Boris/Farage and co acknowledge this as a fact and claim it will be rectified by pent up demand.

I have argued that the impact will not be as bad as many claim, but not that it will have no impact. I have also said in the past that in the longer term it is pretty much impossible to say - consistent with my arguments above.

rick_chasey

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

This is plainly b@ll@cks

No it's not. Tell me why you think it is.

Because, re #2, you can.

It’s a bit like if I start smashing down 15-20,000 calories a day and my Dr says “you’ll get seriously fat and be unhealthy if you do” and you go “well we have no idea if he’d have put on weight had he not massively increase his calories”.

What the dr can’t do is predict how much weight I will put on to the kilo, nor can she predict when I have a heart attack.

Doesn’t mean the doc is wrong, nor was her prediction.

No but you can never prove it. Therefore, it's worthless.

Aaaahahahahaha.


Where’s that deep fried pizza?!

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

All your arguments have been about long term forecasts. This is a question of 3.5years with actual data for both our economy and our peers. Of course you can't put a precise figure on it but again, we're not looking for a precise figure. Nearest order of magnitude will do. And there will be a probability attached to the comparative estimate of 'without Brexit' performance. I don't know what that is, but I'd hazard a guess that it's well into the more-likely-than-not range. Take those two bits of information and you can establish with a reasonable degree of (but not absolute) certainty whether the difference in tax revenues between the actual and modelled performance is greater than, less than, or roughly comparable with payments to the EU. No time machine needed.

What is? If its Rick evidence hes already said he CBA to show it so in effect he has made no point all.

And as you are referring to actual data then whatever it is, it must all refer to a period before leaving the EU - so is irrelevant.

And we're straight back to your live in the moment nonsense. I'm referring to the Bloomberg article I posted, which was looking at the negative effect of our collective dithering between the referendum and now, by looking at our actual performance as compared to a model based on the long established relationship with the G7 performance. The lost growth illustrated in that article would have some impact on tax revenues. Not one we can quantify precisely, but one we can estimate to a reasonable degree. It's not a complicated argument.

By the way, from what I read, the jury is still out on whether economic systems exhibit true chaos or more generally non-linesr relationships.

For example http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/35988/1/35988.pdf

I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.

And one academic article casting doubt on chaotic behaviour of financial markets does not make it any more forecastable,

On your first point, you've more than once commented that historic data is irrelevant. Clearly in relation to the article I posted, historic data is not irrelevant. In 5 years time, the preceding 5 years' data will also be relevant in assessing where we are. Of course we won't be able to categorically state that our decision to leave the EU is responsible for £Xbn of whatever, but we should be able to gauge whether we are doing better than our peers, worse or about the same and make some assessment of possible causes.

Whether economic systems do or don't exhibit chaotic behaviour (in the mathematical sense) is important in determining whether using chaos theory to improve predictions - as has happened in other fields - is appropriate. The argument for chaos theory not applying to markets is that there is not a deterministic rule governing evolution of that system. I'll have a look out for that book you mentioned.

Link to the book review is in my post to Brian above. I've read it more than once, buts of it are proper thought provokers/do your nut in type stuff. The part that sticks in my mind if you want a quick google is 'The Mandelbrot Set'.

From memory I'm pretty sure it covers financial market behaviour as an example of a complex system exhibiting such.

To your point above, its not that historic data is irrelevant, it's that it is of very limited use in long range forecasting.

Stevo_666

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

Can definitely agree with point 2, which is what I've been trying to explain.

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

I might have got this headache even if I hadn't bashed my head repeatedly against a brick wall. We'll never know if it was the right thing to do.

Overly simplistic don't you think?

Well, yes and no. We may able to make a judgement in the future as to whether the country has performed well or not post Brexit. What we can't do is make any kind of useful judgement as to whether that outcome is better or worse than if we'd stayed.

It might well be me but can you rewrite that as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I accept that I my well have missed the joke

OK, I'll try as no joke was intended.

1. We can judge whether the country has performed well (or not) as an economy at some point after Brexit.
2. We can't judge (reliably) whether that outcome is better or worse than if Brexit had not happened.

This is plainly b@ll@cks

No it's not. Tell me why you think it is.

Because, re #2, you can.

It’s a bit like if I start smashing down 15-20,000 calories a day and my Dr says “you’ll get seriously fat and be unhealthy if you do” and you go “well we have no idea if he’d have put on weight had he not massively increase his calories”.

What the dr can’t do is predict how much weight I will put on to the kilo, nor can she predict when I have a heart attack.

Doesn’t mean the doc is wrong, nor was her prediction.

No but you can never prove it. Therefore, it's worthless.

Aaaahahahahaha.


Where’s that deep fried pizza?!

It's underneath the chocolate cake - over there --->

kingstongraham

And yet you say that countries have suffered because of communism.

tailwindhome

We'll never know if Boris was better for the economy than Corbyn.

*Mind blown gif*

Longshot

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

All your arguments have been about long term forecasts. This is a question of 3.5years with actual data for both our economy and our peers. Of course you can't put a precise figure on it but again, we're not looking for a precise figure. Nearest order of magnitude will do. And there will be a probability attached to the comparative estimate of 'without Brexit' performance. I don't know what that is, but I'd hazard a guess that it's well into the more-likely-than-not range. Take those two bits of information and you can establish with a reasonable degree of (but not absolute) certainty whether the difference in tax revenues between the actual and modelled performance is greater than, less than, or roughly comparable with payments to the EU. No time machine needed.

What is? If its Rick evidence hes already said he CBA to show it so in effect he has made no point all.

And as you are referring to actual data then whatever it is, it must all refer to a period before leaving the EU - so is irrelevant.

And we're straight back to your live in the moment nonsense. I'm referring to the Bloomberg article I posted, which was looking at the negative effect of our collective dithering between the referendum and now, by looking at our actual performance as compared to a model based on the long established relationship with the G7 performance. The lost growth illustrated in that article would have some impact on tax revenues. Not one we can quantify precisely, but one we can estimate to a reasonable degree. It's not a complicated argument.

By the way, from what I read, the jury is still out on whether economic systems exhibit true chaos or more generally non-linesr relationships.

For example http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/35988/1/35988.pdf

I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.

And one academic article casting doubt on chaotic behaviour of financial markets does not make it any more forecastable,

On your first point, you've more than once commented that historic data is irrelevant. Clearly in relation to the article I posted, historic data is not irrelevant. In 5 years time, the preceding 5 years' data will also be relevant in assessing where we are. Of course we won't be able to categorically state that our decision to leave the EU is responsible for £Xbn of whatever, but we should be able to gauge whether we are doing better than our peers, worse or about the same and make some assessment of possible causes.

Whether economic systems do or don't exhibit chaotic behaviour (in the mathematical sense) is important in determining whether using chaos theory to improve predictions - as has happened in other fields - is appropriate. The argument for chaos theory not applying to markets is that there is not a deterministic rule governing evolution of that system. I'll have a look out for that book you mentioned.

Link to the book review is in my post to Brian above. I've read it more than once, buts of it are proper thought provokers/do your not in type stuff. The part that sticks in my mind if you want a quick google is 'The Mandelbrot Set'.

From memory I'm pretty sure it covers financial market behaviour as an example of a complex system exhibiting such.

To your point above, its not that historic data is irrelevant, it's that it is of very limited use in long range forecasting.

That'll be a nostalgia trip - I had a fractal generator program on my Commodore Amiga.

tailwindhome

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

We can't say for absolute certainty, which incidentally no one is claiming.

We can however use what information we have to conclude that the most likely scenario would have been that Cameron would have handed over power to another Conservative (he had indicated an intention not to run again) in the run up to a May 2020 election under the FTPA (legislation in place)

We can then look at how the 'actual' timeline deviated and see the impact of the Brexit vote being lost, May's premiership, May calling the election, the hung parliament, the Brexit wranglings and the eventual Boris victory.

Other outcomes were possible eg Cameron could have been assassinated after declaring war on Russia post Salisbury, but we can reasonably view that as a less likely scenario.

tailwindhome

Cameron winning in 2015 seems a lifetime ago

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

Cameron winning in 2015 seems a lifetime ago

Motto: "Let's give it a go, what's the worst that could happen?"

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

We'll never know if Boris was better for the economy than Corbyn.

*Mind blown gif*

This is a fair point. We have tried something sort of similar once before, but it was in a very different economic environment and it was not actually Corbyn as PM. If we'll never know because previous experience is a poor predictor of future performance - and we can agree that despite general similarities, there are lots of micro differences between Corbyn in 2020 and Callaghan in the '70s - on what do we base our assessment?

tailwindhome

If Theresa May had stayed in post she would be enjoying an 86 seat majority now and getting her deal through parliament.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

tailwindhome said:

We'll never know if Boris was better for the economy than Corbyn.

*Mind blown gif*

This is a fair point. We have tried something sort of similar once before, but it was in a very different economic environment and it was not actually Corbyn as PM. If we'll never know because previous experience is a poor predictor of future performance - and we can agree that despite general similarities, there are lots of micro differences between Corbyn in 2020 and Callaghan in the '70s - on what do we base our assessment?

We also cannot attribute anything that subsequently happened to the decision that was previously made in the mid 70s.

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

tailwindhome said:

We'll never know if Boris was better for the economy than Corbyn.

*Mind blown gif*

This is a fair point. We have tried something sort of similar once before, but it was in a very different economic environment and it was not actually Corbyn as PM. If we'll never know because previous experience is a poor predictor of future performance - and we can agree that despite general similarities, there are lots of micro differences between Corbyn in 2020 and Callaghan in the '70s - on what do we base our assessment?

But Callaghan was a massive success! those arguing he was an economic disaster are making stuff up, how could they know what would have happened if he was not PM?

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

No, you didn't have the option I needed. In order to GUARANTEE that I would be able to get to Brighton in time, I would have left two weeks earlier which should cover me for all possible eventualities save death and natural disasters.

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

No, you didn't have the option I needed. In order to GUARANTEE that I would be able to get to Brighton in time, I would have left two weeks earlier which should cover me for all possible eventualities save death and natural disasters.

don't forget the dangers posed by an errant butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon rain forest

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

No, you didn't have the option I needed. In order to GUARANTEE that I would be able to get to Brighton in time, I would have left two weeks earlier which should cover me for all possible eventualities save death and natural disasters.

don't forget the dangers posed by an errant butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon rain forest

Hmmm. 3 weeks?

tailwindhome

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

No, you didn't have the option I needed. In order to GUARANTEE that I would be able to get to Brighton in time, I would have left two weeks earlier which should cover me for all possible eventualities save death and natural disasters.

A decision which would provide two weeks for you to reflect on the value of forecasting based partly on previous experience.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

OK, just to try and prove some kind of useless point.

Let's assume that Brexit is not happening. At some point during Cameron's announcement about the Referendum and today, the Leave campaign got derailed, beaten, sentenced to jail, whatever...

Who would our Prime Minister be today?

No idea what your point is

Try this - you cycle to Brighton 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3.5 hours and cycle 50 times on your own and it takes on average 3 hours. On Saturday you are cycling alone to meet a friend in Brighton at Noon. What time do you set off?
a) 08:30
b) 08:45
c) 09:00
d) throw a dart at a clock as past performance is no guide to future performance

That's great but I don't get what your point is. We haven't not left Europe 50 times before.

but we do have very sophisticated macro-economic models that you could leave running with the assumption we were still in the EU.

I notice you did not answer the question - does that make you a shy dart thrower?

No, you didn't have the option I needed. In order to GUARANTEE that I would be able to get to Brighton in time, I would have left two weeks earlier which should cover me for all possible eventualities save death and natural disasters.

don't forget the dangers posed by an errant butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon rain forest

Like all one-liner metaphors it is necessarily simplistic. There are limits to what can happen. Hurricanes are generally confined to the tropics. You can probably discount them as a possibility between London and Brighton, at least with a cursory glance at the weather.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.

Maybe we are getting the point, however many times you claim the contrary. Just a thought.

Or maybe not. Or maybe you don't want to understand because you really want to be able to say in 10 years time that nasty Brexit was so harmful?

Try reading the book I recommended. It's quite intellectual and theoretical so should be right up your street.

If he reads the book who's to say his understanding of the subject will have improved as a result of reading it or whether he'd have acquired that understanding anyway?

rick_chasey

Some stunning nonsense being spouted.