BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…14531454145614581459…2102

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Could we agree

    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Let's have a look at the fish vs FS scale.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06193/

    2019 parliament report puts FS at 6.9% of UK GDP and 3.1% of all UK jobs (who knew, FS was high earning, eh?) That's £132bn to the economy per year and 1.1m jobs

    (As an aside: 43% of financial services exports went to the EU and 34% of financial services imports came from the EU)

    Anyway, fish. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0256/CDP-2017-0256.pdf

    two years older at 2017, so expect some marginal differences.

    There were 4,000 businesses in the fishing industry in 2016. These businesses employed 24,000 people and contributed £1.4 billion (0.12% of the all UK economic output.) to the UK economy in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA – a measure similar to GDP, abeit flattering, as it's just 0.12% of the all UK economic output)

    (For Scottish Indie's, just over half of these fishermen are in Scotland...)

    So we're not that far off FS being two orders of magnitude more valuable than fishing.


    The problem with this logic is that if you extrapolate it up then it shows the weakness in running a country with just money leading the decisions. What percentage would be required to sell the inhabitants of that country down the river. What if China said in 2025 when they might be the leading economy in the world that we cannot trade with them unless we sign up to a one way extradition process where having a flag was enough to get deported and put in the Ghulag. Maybe France want all the fishing rights so that some Southerners can keep selling financial products to this market. Maybe Nissan want the UK to have the four freedoms so that they don't have to pay import taxes or export taxes on goods. At what point does it not work within a democracy this money first obsession you have.
    This is not easy to read, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

    Let me put my point in a different way. A lot more jobs are affected by screwing up FS than are affected by screwing up Fishing.

    That may not be the *only* factor in deciding what to prioritise, but it is surely a bloody big one?
    The basic point is that a good democracy is often at odds with business for the greater good of the population. If this was not the case we would still have victoria employment practices. We would still have victorian environmental laws. The constant quest for a steady gdp increase is actually not that important to most people. Allowing your economy to rely on certain sectors is a fools errand.
    Could we agree that most people don’t realise how important a steady increase in GDP is to them?

    It is probably peoples failure to understand this simple concept that has led us to where we are.
    Only where there is context in the form of the gdp growth. It is the lack of care as to what type of growth is going on that is the problem. Gdp figures would be great if we doubled the population but the vast majority of the populations quality of life and access to services would suffer.
    Why do you think GDP figures would be great if we doubled the population?
    I am not even going to answer this as it is so fecking obvious.
    Go on give it a try.

    I find it helps to take two extreme examples.

    So on the one hand add 68 million Elon Musks and on the other add 68 million penniless economically inactive people.
    When you look up the definition of GDP please advise the group how either of the examples above would not boost GDP. Kind of proving my original point are you not.
    Let’s simplify it. In these two examples do you think there is an identical impact on GDP?

    Elon Musk moves to the UK and sets up a factory employing 1,000 people.

    My penniless granny moves here to live with me here after losing her life savings buying crypto currencies and has no income or entitlement to any benefits.
    The simple act of moving to the UK will itself have increased the GDP by the journey alone. I suspect you are trying to talk about GDP per capita, but that wasn't the original point.

    She swam
    Then walked to Surrey, ate nothing and died without a funeral?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,938
    ...admitted to hospital due to dehydration and spent her remaining days at the NHS expense. Can we end this pointless aside?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    edited July 2020
    pblakeney said:

    ...admitted to hospital due to dehydration and spent her remaining days at the NHS expense. Can we end this pointless aside?

    After 1,456 pages of banging on about GDP growth, it appears surrey commuter doesn't understand what it is. Isn't that worth pausing on for a moment, or at least allowing him the opportunity to find a shovel?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,980
    Earnings per head have not grown for any macro stratum in the U.K. except for the very very rich for a decade.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    vegas76 said:

    censored off

    I'm not 100% convinced that your political competence extends to answering questions. How are we supposed to have a debate if your best effort at debate is what you posted above? :smile:

    Here they are again, just in case you were having such a good time last night that you missed them:
    "How will the EU benefit if we do badly, given that we are one of their major export markets?

    And do you think this would benefit you?"
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    pblakeney said:

    ...admitted to hospital due to dehydration and spent her remaining days at the NHS expense. Can we end this pointless aside?

    After 1,456 pages of banging on about GDP growth, it appears surrey commuter doesn't understand what it is. Isn't that worth pausing on for a moment, or at least allowing him the opportunity to find a shovel?
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Could we agree

    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    john80 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Let's have a look at the fish vs FS scale.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06193/

    2019 parliament report puts FS at 6.9% of UK GDP and 3.1% of all UK jobs (who knew, FS was high earning, eh?) That's £132bn to the economy per year and 1.1m jobs

    (As an aside: 43% of financial services exports went to the EU and 34% of financial services imports came from the EU)

    Anyway, fish. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0256/CDP-2017-0256.pdf

    two years older at 2017, so expect some marginal differences.

    There were 4,000 businesses in the fishing industry in 2016. These businesses employed 24,000 people and contributed £1.4 billion (0.12% of the all UK economic output.) to the UK economy in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA – a measure similar to GDP, abeit flattering, as it's just 0.12% of the all UK economic output)

    (For Scottish Indie's, just over half of these fishermen are in Scotland...)

    So we're not that far off FS being two orders of magnitude more valuable than fishing.


    The problem with this logic is that if you extrapolate it up then it shows the weakness in running a country with just money leading the decisions. What percentage would be required to sell the inhabitants of that country down the river. What if China said in 2025 when they might be the leading economy in the world that we cannot trade with them unless we sign up to a one way extradition process where having a flag was enough to get deported and put in the Ghulag. Maybe France want all the fishing rights so that some Southerners can keep selling financial products to this market. Maybe Nissan want the UK to have the four freedoms so that they don't have to pay import taxes or export taxes on goods. At what point does it not work within a democracy this money first obsession you have.
    This is not easy to read, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

    Let me put my point in a different way. A lot more jobs are affected by screwing up FS than are affected by screwing up Fishing.

    That may not be the *only* factor in deciding what to prioritise, but it is surely a bloody big one?
    The basic point is that a good democracy is often at odds with business for the greater good of the population. If this was not the case we would still have victoria employment practices. We would still have victorian environmental laws. The constant quest for a steady gdp increase is actually not that important to most people. Allowing your economy to rely on certain sectors is a fools errand.
    Could we agree that most people don’t realise how important a steady increase in GDP is to them?

    It is probably peoples failure to understand this simple concept that has led us to where we are.
    Only where there is context in the form of the gdp growth. It is the lack of care as to what type of growth is going on that is the problem. Gdp figures would be great if we doubled the population but the vast majority of the populations quality of life and access to services would suffer.
    Why do you think GDP figures would be great if we doubled the population?
    I am not even going to answer this as it is so fecking obvious.
    Go on give it a try.

    I find it helps to take two extreme examples.

    So on the one hand add 68 million Elon Musks and on the other add 68 million penniless economically inactive people.
    When you look up the definition of GDP please advise the group how either of the examples above would not boost GDP. Kind of proving my original point are you not.
    Let’s simplify it. In these two examples do you think there is an identical impact on GDP?

    Elon Musk moves to the UK and sets up a factory employing 1,000 people.

    My penniless granny moves here to live with me here after losing her life savings buying crypto currencies and has no income or entitlement to any benefits.
    The simple act of moving to the UK will itself have increased the GDP by the journey alone. I suspect you are trying to talk about GDP per capita, but that wasn't the original point.

    She swam
    Then walked to Surrey, ate nothing and died without a funeral?
    I am starting to understand the fun you get nitpicking holes in a simplistic scenario that somebody is using to explain an economic concept

    So yes I buried her in the garden using a shovel I already owned
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
    And my mate Google
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
    And my mate Google
    You know those gravity models that forecast economic growth under different Brexit scenarios by 2030 include population growth?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
    And my mate Google
    You know those gravity models that forecast economic growth under different Brexit scenarios by 2030 include population growth?
    Do you want a sensible conversation now or continue to act like a tvvat?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
    And my mate Google
    You know those gravity models that forecast economic growth under different Brexit scenarios by 2030 include population growth?
    Do you want a sensible conversation now or continue to act like a tvvat?
    I'm fairly sure that is not the way to start a sensible conversation.

    I simply do not understand how you can argue that population growth doesn't lead to GDP growth. It doesn't automatically lead to GDP growth per capita, it does however lead to overall GDP growth. This was part of the gravity modelling and explained some of, but not all of, the higher GDP without Brexit.

    Or put even more simply, India's GDP is currently similar to the UK's.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,980
    It is really bothering me that they are rebranding no deal and BoJo is saying it’s fine. It really isn’t.
    _
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    I did wonder the calibre of negotiators we had in the 70s agreeing that 84% of cod in the english channel was French and 9% was English. Guess they must all keep to the French side.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    edited July 2020
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Just because you and John80 think there is a direct correlation between population growth and GDP growth does not make you right.

    I think this one is you versus the world.
    And my mate Google
    You know those gravity models that forecast economic growth under different Brexit scenarios by 2030 include population growth?
    Do you want a sensible conversation now or continue to act like a tvvat?
    I'm fairly sure that is not the way to start a sensible conversation.

    I simply do not understand how you can argue that population growth doesn't lead to GDP growth. It doesn't automatically lead to GDP growth per capita, it does however lead to overall GDP growth. This was part of the gravity modelling and explained some of, but not all of, the higher GDP without Brexit.

    Or put even more simply, India's GDP is currently similar to the UK's.
    Is that what you two are disagreeing about? I had always taken that as a given as it was pretty obvious.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Park GDP per capita for a minute and have a quick Google of population growth and GDP growth.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    I have. Overall GDP (being a total figure) will be positively influenced by population levels and growth. BB's India-UK comparison is a good real life example.

    So where these forecast economic growth models comparing Brexit vs Remain contain different population/population growth assumptions for the two scenarios, we will not be comparing like with like on GDP. You would need forecast GDP per capita comparisons do do that.

    Unfortunately your arguments over the last few years appear to have been based on overall GDP forecasts and not taken into account any population differences. So it would appear that your economic comparisons have been to some extent misguided or unintentionally misleading. That said, this really is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted as we have already left.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Stevo_666 said:

    I have. Overall GDP (being a total figure) will be positively influenced by population levels and growth. BB's India-UK comparison is a good real life example.

    So where these forecast economic growth models comparing Brexit vs Remain contain different population/population growth assumptions for the two scenarios, we will not be comparing like with like on GDP. You would need forecast GDP per capita comparisons do do that.

    Unfortunately your arguments over the last few years appear to have been based on overall GDP forecasts and not taken into account any population differences. So it would appear that your economic comparisons have been to some extent misguided or unintentionally misleading. That said, this really is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted as we have already left.

    my comment was aimed at TBB

    My argument is that population growth does not automatically lead to GDP growth.

    From a purely economic point of view you want working age, well educated fit and healthy immigrants. The absolute sweet spot is ones setting up their own businesses.

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    edited July 2020
    surrey_commuter said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    I have. Overall GDP (being a total figure) will be positively influenced by population levels and growth. BB's India-UK comparison is a good real life example.

    So where these forecast economic growth models comparing Brexit vs Remain contain different population/population growth assumptions for the two scenarios, we will not be comparing like with like on GDP. You would need forecast GDP per capita comparisons do do that.

    Unfortunately your arguments over the last few years appear to have been based on overall GDP forecasts and not taken into account any population differences. So it would appear that your economic comparisons have been to some extent misguided or unintentionally misleading. That said, this really is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted as we have already left.

    my comment was aimed at TBB

    My argument is that population growth does not automatically lead to GDP growth.

    From a purely economic point of view you want working age, well educated fit and healthy immigrants. The absolute sweet spot is ones setting up their own businesses.

    The evidence I saw from my quick google was that population growth tends to increase overall GDP, hence my point about not comparing apples with apples.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    So you agree that population growth does not automatically lead to GDP growth?

    We are not talking about GDP per capita
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,738
    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    I have. Overall GDP (being a total figure) will be positively influenced by population levels and growth. BB's India-UK comparison is a good real life example.

    So where these forecast economic growth models comparing Brexit vs Remain contain different population/population growth assumptions for the two scenarios, we will not be comparing like with like on GDP. You would need forecast GDP per capita comparisons do do that.

    Unfortunately your arguments over the last few years appear to have been based on overall GDP forecasts and not taken into account any population differences. So it would appear that your economic comparisons have been to some extent misguided or unintentionally misleading. That said, this really is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted as we have already left.

    my comment was aimed at TBB

    My argument is that population growth does not automatically lead to GDP growth.

    From a purely economic point of view you want working age, well educated fit and healthy immigrants. The absolute sweet spot is ones setting up their own businesses.

    The evidence I saw from my quick google was that population growth tends to increase overall GDP, hence my point about not comparing apples with apples.
    Indeed. It even has a name (extensive growth e.g. population increase, land increase) which separates it from the good sort of growth (intensive growth e.g. increased productivity of labour)
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    surrey_commuter said:

    So you agree that population growth does not automatically lead to GDP growth?

    We are not talking about GDP per capita

    The evidence I read says that it does. So on the grey scale, much more likely than not. Not sure if you could ever prove 100%, but that's economics for you.

    Very clear we are talking about GDP and not GDP per capita btw.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • spatt77
    spatt77 Posts: 324
    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!
  • twotoebenny
    twotoebenny Posts: 1,451
    How do we get a better standard of living? Who has more control and of what?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,801
    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    On living standards, that's where GDP per capita comes in. As BB mentions above, India has a comparable overall GDP to the UK but its inhabitants are on the whole much less well off than we are as their GDP per capita is much lower.

    The control point has been done to death on here but I'm sure someone will pop up to argue it again...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,938
    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,980
    pblakeney said:

    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.
    The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

    It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

    You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.
    The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

    It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

    You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.
    it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

    Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

    interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    Stevo_666 said:

    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    On living standards, that's where GDP per capita comes in. As BB mentions above, India has a comparable overall GDP to the UK but its inhabitants are on the whole much less well off than we are as their GDP per capita is much lower.

    The control point has been done to death on here but I'm sure someone will pop up to argue it again...
    In general terms population growth increases gdp, simply by having more hands passing the money on its merry-go-round. more hands = more transactions = more gdp. However, if you have a population growth of one, where they bring covid-19 to the uk and that leads to lots of people staying at home and not spending money... clearly that leads to a reduction in GDP.
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    spatt77 said:

    I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

    You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.
    The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

    It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

    You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.
    it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

    Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

    interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2
    People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

Categories