this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023

56 points (95.2% liked)

UK Politics

3067 readers

142 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Eurozone inflation falls to 5.5% in sharp contrast to UK (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Snapshot of Eurozone inflation falls to 5.5% in sharp contrast to UK. Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Sure, the OBR says 4% GDP loss per year.

3.1 trillion per year GDP, let's make it 5% just to make it easy

150 billion per year, x 2+ years, it's well over 200bn.

Bloomberg also agrees

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output

So, you going to accept this fact then? or is it going to be fingers in ears?

Your Google fu sucks as does your critical thinking skills

What is this supposed to prove?

I'm saying, they have 2 of the largest companies in the world you've pointed to a company with 34 employees and 2 farms (1 in construction) In farm in Germany has 422 employees (source linkedin for both) so it's 10 times as big a company as the one you linked.

Yes, I did vote for it. Very happy with it. Guess it just sucks to be you

Haha, yeah I can tell, you won't accept reality, you can't accept you've made a huge mistake, you can't handle the truth!

Like I said, you're all remarkably gullible, I mean similar.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

LOL, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT 😂😂😂😂

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

Mate, firstly.

Calm down.

Secondly, you're wrong, it is GDP not GDP per capita and it is at least 200bn.

These are facts, accept the facts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LOL

Fuck off and learn something before you give it large pal.

The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU

Productivity, as in GDP per capita. Not GDP.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No it's GDP, you are simply wrong, confidently wrong I will grant you, but wrong.

Tell me genius, what's the measure for long term productivity growth the OBR uses here?

https://obr.uk/box/productivity-growth-long-term/

Oh right, look at that, it's GDP.

I mean, are you saying Bloomberg is also wrong?

Again, resorting to insults just shows up your immaturity and the fact that you've lost this debate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

GDP growth was similar in the twentieth century and the nineteenth, averaging 2.1 per cent in both cases. Higher productivity growth in the twentieth century therefore is associated with weaker growth of total hours worked, due to a combination of weaker employment growth and falling average hours

You don't understand your own link, 🤡

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fucking hell,

GDP is one thing

Gross domestic product is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by a country or countries.

GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards

What Is GDP Per Capita? Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is an economic metric that breaks down a country's economic output per person. Economists use GDP per capita to determine how prosperous countries are based on their economic growth GDP per capita is calculated by dividing the GDP of a nation by its population. Countries with the higher GDP per capita tend to be those that are industrial, developed countries

Once you've worked that out, tell me what the loss of productivity that the OBR is forecasting is down to.

Hint, it's comparative advantage. When you've learned what that is, let me know.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I know what the difference is, I've just shown you that the OBR is referring to GDP when they walk about 'long term productivity growth' and nothing you have posted there contradicts that.

Seems to be a pattern here, you say something incorrect, I point it out, and you throw insults.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lol, no they're not. Productivity is not GDP...

And the 4% is over 15 years and is a result of loss of comparative advantage.

If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?

If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?

Let me ask you, what do you think it's cost the UK per year in billion pounds?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?

But that's what the forecast says. 4% of productivity lost over the long term of 15 years due to loss of comparative advantage

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis

But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.

The loss of comparative advantage is replaced, I'd argue, with competitive advantage which has a much stronger effect. The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI

GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow...

The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect

I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities' innovations.

load more comments (6 replies)