UK to warn public every week over 'no-deal Brexit': The Times

[aright]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you've plagiarized something to establish that Burage has credentials. Here's one link to a source:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/brexit/258313-economics-brexit.html

 

As for his credentials, so what? There are people with a lot more impressive credentials and they overwhelmingly oppose Burage. 

Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that was a published bibliography; nothing to get angry about.

 

Burrage basically says  UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU

 

Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view? Its only fair I have made public his claims and credentials. Counter claims and credentials please.

 

Why are you always so angry with people who disagree with you?  

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by aright

[aright]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

No. I married a woman 24 years younger than me. Vanity I guess. At least I'm not a hypocritical  bastard. Just the usual type of bastard.

I don't get on with very young women . My last experience I asked her to do missionary and she buggered off to Africa for six months.?

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, aright said:

I don't get on with very young women . My last experience I asked her to do missionary and she buggered off to Africa for six months.?

You don't even manage to get on with Theresa May.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, aright said:

Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that was a published bibliography; nothing to get angry about.

 

Burrage basically says  UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU

 

Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view? Its only fair I have made public his claims and credentials. Counter claims and credentials please.

 

Why are you always so angry with people who disagree with you?  

 

To get to the other side? ?

Edited August 9, 2018 by nauseus
?

[aright]

12 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

You don't even manage to get on with Theresa May.

Is this a prelude to telling me the reason Therese May was sacked as Nativity Manager was because she couldn't run a stable government.

[aright]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

To get to the other side? ?

This is no joking matter.

Did you know jokes about white sugar are rare. Jokes about brown sugar demerara.

[melvinmelvin]

 

Look at this;

 

https://news.sky.com/story/liam-fox-faces-ridicule-over-u-turn-on-brexit-no-deal-11462477

 

Jeeez, is the UK serious at all?

Large scale trade deals are pretty much built on mutual trust, Who can trust anything like UK?

 

If UKers don't understand that they must stop vote Tory,  she is going down the drain.

(Never mind Corbyn, smth different from Tory  must be tried.)

 

Waves to rule, be great again - give me a break (or Belhaven).

 

 

 

[aright]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jim-ratcliffe-brexit-uk-richest-man-monaco-move-tax-haven-eu-leave-a8484211.html

 

No comment necessary.

Ratcliffe, Branson and Grouse live abroad and all three have strong Brexit opinions and as far as I can tell they all meet their tax obligations and none of them have done anything illegal. What's your point?

I have other names if you want them. 

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, aright said:

Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that was a published bibliography; nothing to get angry about.

 

Burrage basically says  UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU

 

Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view? Its only fair I have made public his claims and credentials. Counter claims and credentials please.

 

Why are you always so angry with people who disagree with you?  

 

 

8 hours ago, aright said:

Anyone with any intelligence would recognize that was a published bibliography; nothing to get angry about.

 

Burrage basically says  UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU

 

Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view? Its only fair I have made public his claims and credentials. Counter claims and credentials please.

 

Why are you always so angry with people who disagree with you?  

 

Well for starters here's a link to Paul Krugman. He got his Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work on International Trade:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/brexit-meets-gravity.html

I'll be providing more.

 

[aright]

Where in the article does he disprove Burrage's contention that " UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU"

 

My question was "Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view?" 

 

I can't see his opposite view? Lets hope your next link addresses my question

 

Todays Express

"Another member of Economists for Free Trade, Michael Burrage, recently published a paper which shows that countries dealing with the EU on WTO terms do three times better than EU members and 50 per cent better than those signed up to trade deals."

 

[Orac]

Where in the article does he disprove Burrage's contention that " UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU"

 

My question was "Can you give me the evidence and links of your so called people  with more impressive credentials which  are of the opposite view?" 

 

I can't see his opposite view? Lets hope your next link addresses my question

 

Todays Express

"Another member of Economists for Free Trade, Michael Burrage, recently published a paper which shows that countries dealing with the EU on WTO terms do three times better than EU members and 50 per cent better than those signed up to trade deals."

 

 

It is a deceptive use of statistics prioritising growth rates over volumes.

 

As an example, in 2017, U.K. food and drink exports to South Korea increased by 22.6% but 11.7% for Ireland and only 7.4% for France so fits the argument above however, since we do 12x more business with Ireland and over 8x more business with France these markets are far more important to us though this is being ignored by the economists in your articles (partly because it relates to a degree with the ‘gravity model’ that they are keen to dismiss as discredited).

 

The data is here that I am using:

 

https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports-2017-datasets-full.aspx#item4

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

9 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Look at this;

https://news.sky.com/story/liam-fox-faces-ridicule-over-u-turn-on-brexit-no-deal-11462477

Jeeez, is the UK serious at all?

Large scale trade deals are pretty much built on mutual trust, Who can trust anything like UK?

If UKers don't understand that they must stop vote Tory,  she is going down the drain.

(Never mind Corbyn, smth different from Tory  must be tried.)

Waves to rule, be great again - give me a break (or Belhaven).

A list of disconnected statements that do not lead one from another at all apart from pet nostrums. It would be better for some Remainers (and Brexiteers) to focus on the Hard/ Soft negotiations outcome rather than weakly turning the current situation into a straight Tories Vs Labour simple Simon. and as for the nonsense "Never mind Corbyn, smth different from Tory  must be tried." try something other than shooting your arguments in the foot.

[aright]

4 hours ago, Orac said:

 

It is a deceptive use of statistics prioritising growth rates over volumes.

 

As an example, in 2017, U.K. food and drink exports to South Korea increased by 22.6% but 11.7% for Ireland and only 7.4% for France so fits the argument above however, since we do 12x more business with Ireland and over 8x more business with France these markets are far more important to us though this is being ignored by the economists in your articles (partly because it relates to a degree with the ‘gravity model’ that they are keen to dismiss as discredited).

 

The data is here that I am using:

 

https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports-2017-datasets-full.aspx#item4

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I bow to your greater knowledge and as a result you have lost me.

 

Burrages statement in the paper not only questioned a Treasury flawed model but also discredited the Treasury as a result of  misrepresented sources, failing to mention earlier Treasury research coming to a different conclusion describing their work as discreditable and dishonest. Moreover, the Treasury saw no reason to publish its work nor to answer its critics. So he is firing with more than one gun. 

 

I read Burrages conclusions as being history not model based so the relative sizes of business are incorporated in his figures aren't they? . I am no expert so can you throw some light as to why historical IMF data can't be used to  measure the success or failure of trading outcomes. You will find me a good student. 

 

 

[Orac]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

I bow to your greater knowledge and as a result you have lost me.

 

Burrages statement in the paper not only questioned a Treasury flawed model but also discredited the Treasury as a result of  misrepresented sources, failing to mention earlier Treasury research coming to a different conclusion describing their work as discreditable and dishonest. Moreover, the Treasury saw no reason to publish its work nor to answer its critics. So he is firing with more than one gun. 

 

I read Burrages conclusions as being history not model based so the relative sizes of business are incorporated in his figures aren't they? . I am no expert so can you throw some light as to why historical IMF data can't be used to  measure the success or failure of trading outcomes. You will find me a good student. 

 

 

 

Not sure why you are lost - it is very basic maths.

 

you quoted from the Daily Express without a link:

 

"Another member of Economists for Free Trade, Michael Burrage, recently published a paper which shows that countries dealing with the EU on WTO terms do three times better than EU members and 50 per cent better than those signed up to trade deals."

 

and I have tried to explain why this is misleading because it does not put any weight on the actual volume of trade being done. A simpler question would be would you rather have 30% of £100 or 10% of £1000.

[aright]

34 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Not sure why you are lost - it is very basic maths.

 

you quoted from the Daily Express without a link:

 

"Another member of Economists for Free Trade, Michael Burrage, recently published a paper which shows that countries dealing with the EU on WTO terms do three times better than EU members and 50 per cent better than those signed up to trade deals."

 

and I have tried to explain why this is misleading because it does not put any weight on the actual volume of trade being done. A simpler question would be would you rather have 30% of £100 or 10% of £1000.

The link as I said was todays Daily Express, because of elapsed time it now maybe yesterdays Express

 

I do have "A" level "Applied Mathematics" but I still don't understand why using historical data generated over almost 20 years has no value in  projecting outcomes because the figures are produced as a result of volume and value, or indeed why, as a result of Burrage's significant claim other Economists haven't complained his conclusions on this particular paper are flawed.   

We have reached an impasse you can't explain to me and I can't understand you but thanks for trying anyway.

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, aright said:

I am no expert so can you throw some light as to why historical IMF data can't be used to  measure the success or failure of trading outcomes. 

It’s the job of the author to show how historical IMF data can be used to measure the success or failure of trading outcomes. That’s where he fails because all he does is pulling out some data to jump to a conclusion. 

[aright]

14 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s the job of the author to show how historical IMF data can be used to measure the success or failure of trading outcomes. That’s where he fails because all he does is pulling out some data to jump to a conclusion. 

Historical analysis tries to make sense of the future through disciplined and systematic analysis of the past. No one needs to explain that to me I accept it as I accept "If you ignore the past you are doomed to repeat it"

The first port of call for gamblers on the horses or dogs is their history , that in part decides where they put their money.

 

 

[sandyf]

On 8/9/2018 at 10:03 PM, aright said:

 

Burrage basically says  UK goods exporters exporting to the rest of the world have, over many years, outperformed exporters enjoying the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU

 

 

And the whole thing is fundamentally flawed, the trading arrangements that previously existed will cease to exist so how can there be any validity.

It is time people woke up and realised what this "no deal" scenario actually means.

[sandyf]

On 8/9/2018 at 6:45 PM, nauseus said:

The only one who mentioned UK corruption in the immediate preceding string was you. Enjoy debating with yourself.

A real brexiteer would be concerned about putting his own house in order rather than constantly complaining about what is happening elsewhere in the world.

[aright]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

And the whole thing is fundamentally flawed, the trading arrangements that previously existed will cease to exist so how can there be any validity.

It is time people woke up and realised what this "no deal" scenario actually means.

Have you read the report? His conclusions were based on trading arrangements which previously existed I didn't see any conclusions about future outcomes under new arrangements which you appear to think you   have inside knowledge of.

You are good at non sequiturs.

[nauseus]

57 minutes ago, sandyf said:

A real brexiteer would be concerned about putting his own house in order rather than constantly complaining about what is happening elsewhere in the world.

You certainly seem to be maintaining your constant but tangential trajectory well enough. 

[candide]

7 hours ago, aright said:

Historical analysis tries to make sense of the future through disciplined and systematic analysis of the past. No one needs to explain that to me I accept it as I accept "If you ignore the past you are doomed to repeat it"

The first port of call for gamblers on the horses or dogs is their history , that in part decides where they put their money.

 

 

The issue is not wether historical studies are useful or not. The issue is wether this particular analysis has been done properly or not. As mentioned before, the answer is that it has not been done properly.

 

Firstly, it is very likely that the differences in trade growth observed are due to the difference in GDP growth between countries. China has a GDP growth of around 7/8 %  so it is likely that the growth of trade with China will be around 7/8%. If the EU GDP growth is 2%,then it is likely that trade growth will be around 2%. It has not much to do with the trade rules that are applied (WTO or other type of deal). Not comparing trade growth with GDP growth for each category of trade rules is either incompetence or lack of scientific ethics. 

 

Secondly, it does not prove that another type of deal would have been more or less efficient. Would the trade growth with EU be higher or lower with another type of rules (for example WTO or EEA)? There is no answer to this question.

[aright]

Yes your answer is the analysis has not done properly but I can find no evidence that recognized economists have rushed to poo poo his research and combined with your reluctance (which I can understand) to tell me your qualifications to sit in judgement on him I am skeptical. I would have thought the nature of conflicting evidence would delight incestuous economists  who can show fault or counter evidence especially when the culprit  lectures at LSE and a former Research Fellow at Harvard would have driven lots of articles showing fault or counter evidence especially if it demonstrates your so called incompetence or lack of scientific ethics. A serious charge, which I would have thought the professionals  would have a duty to call out.  If you can show me some evidence  from responsible qualified individuals contradicting his conclusions you will find me with Paul on the road to Damascus. ?

Thanks for your reply.

Edited August 10, 2018 by aright

[candide]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes your answer is the analysis has not done properly but I can find no evidence that recognized economists have rushed to poo poo his research and combined with your reluctance (which I can understand) to tell me your qualifications to sit in judgement on him I am skeptical. I would have thought the nature of conflicting evidence would delight incestuous economists  who can show fault or counter evidence especially when the culprit  lectures at LSE would have driven lots of articles showing fault or counter evidence especially if it demonstrates your so called incompetence or lack of scientific ethics. A serious charge, which I would have thought the professionals  would have a duty to call out.  If you can show me some evidence  from responsible qualified individuals contradicting his conclusions you will find me with Paul on the road to Damascus. ?

Thanks for your reply.

The necessity to take into account GDP growth or inflation rate is taught in first year of bachelor degree in economics, no need to be Nobel prize to know that. Actually Burrage is a sociologist not an economist. But I guess even a sociologist should know that, so I'd rather find the second explanation more likely.

[aright]

20 minutes ago, candide said:

e necessity to take into account GDP growth or inflation rate is taught in first year of bachelor degree in economics, no need to be Nobel prize to know that. Actually Burrage is a sociologist not an economist. But I guess even a sociologist should know that, so I'd rather find the second explanation more likely.

I like Sir Michael Berry's take on economic forecasting

"One of the problems with economic forecasting is that a small change in a few variables can make predictions almost impossibly complex. To understand how quickly the maths can become complicated, Prof Sir Michael Berry tried to forecast the path of a snooker ball after it was hit. Guessing where the first ball would go was easy; the second impact became more complicated, but still possible. The problem was that to correctly forecast the ninth impact, you would need to take account of the gravitational pull of someone standing nearby. To predict the 56th, you would need to include the effect of every single particle in the universe."

Edited August 10, 2018 by aright

[candide]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

I like Sir Michael Berry's take on economic forecasting

"One of the problems with economic forecasting is that a small change in a few variables can make predictions almost impossibly complex. To understand how quickly the maths can become complicated, Prof Sir Michael Berry tried to forecast the path of a snooker ball after it was hit. Guessing where the first ball would go was easy; the second impact became more complicated, but still possible. The problem was that to correctly forecast the ninth impact, you would need to take account of the gravitational pull of someone standing nearby. To predict the 56th, you would need to include the effect of every single particle in the universe."

I don't disagree with it. But what's the relation with Burrage?

[aright]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

I don't disagree with it. But what's the relation with Burrage?

None whatsoever

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, aright said:

Have you read the report? His conclusions were based on trading arrangements which previously existed I didn't see any conclusions about future outcomes under new arrangements which you appear to think you   have inside knowledge of.

You are good at non sequiturs.

A large part of the brexit argument is based on historical information from arrangements that will no longer exist, in other words, completely useless.

You do not need any inside knowledge to see that this "no deal" scenario will move the goal posts, but you are welcome to keep your head in the sand.

[sandyf]

Looks like quite a few are beginning to smell the coffee.

 

The survey also shines a light on views of Brexit’s progress, with large majorities thinking talks are going poorly, that the process of leaving has been a mess, that the country would end up with a bad deal and that the British government would bear responsibility.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-new-poll-public-final-say-no-deal-scenario-a8485161.html

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

A large part of the brexit argument is based on historical information from arrangements that will no longer exist, in other words, completely useless.

You do not need any inside knowledge to see that this "no deal" scenario will move the goal posts, but you are welcome to keep your head in the sand.

Only a minor part of the brexit argument was to do with trade and the economy.

 

When will the eu emus ever acknowledge this??