UK economy only G7 nation to shrink in 2023 - IMF

[Credo]

As near as I can tell, Brexit has been a massive failure.  You gained nothing and lost a lot.  You got rid of the foreigners who were actually working and producing things for Britain, but you were never able to get rid of those that were entering in a less-than-legal manner.

 

The proof is in the numbers -- you are losing economically and people are largely unhappy and insecure.  What did you gain?

 

[Scott]

Posts removed.  Please post links to graphics. 

[Chongalulu]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're right, I don't see the argument because there is no valid one.

None so blind as those that will not see.

[Phoenix Rising]

UK economy to do ‘worse than Russia’, warns IMF on Brexit anniversary

[stevenl]

13 hours ago, nchuckle said:

None so blind as those that will not see.

Says the worldwide recognized economist  contradicting the iMF.

Oh wait.

[Chongalulu]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Says the worldwide recognized economist  contradicting the iMF.

Oh wait.

Yes,oh wait…what was Christine Lagarde convicted of…?

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

Yes,oh wait…what was Christine Lagarde convicted of…?

Not for being a bad economist.

[Chongalulu]

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not for being a bad economist.

So how might one get a conviction for "being a bad economist" ? 
But being found guilty of making inappropriate payments (on more than one occasion) to a third party rather calls into question one’s judgement (at the very least!) wouldn’t you agree? 
But I’m interested in your views of what Sunak's forthcoming increase from 19 to 25% corporation tax will have on FDI and consequently UK productivity if you have any interesting thoughts to spare..?

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

So how might one get a conviction for "being a bad economist" ? 
But being found guilty of making inappropriate payments (on more than one occasion) to a third party rather calls into question one’s judgement (at the very least!) wouldn’t you agree? 
But I’m interested in your views of what Sunak's forthcoming increase from 19 to 25% corporation tax will have on FDI and consequently UK productivity if you have any interesting thoughts to spare..?

No, I wouldn't agree that a technical matter of economic judgement has anything at all to do with her bad judgement in the other case. None at all. Nada. Zip. The motive behind your attempt to conflate 2 kinds of "judgement" is transparently obvious.

 

As for productivity. here's the results of a meta study that analyzed 41 different studies:

"According to the unweighted average of all estimates in our data set, a cut in the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points would increase annual GDP growth rates by about 0.2 percentage points. However, we find evidence for publication selectivity in favour of reporting growth-enhancing effects of corporate tax cuts. Correcting for this bias, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the effect of corporate taxes on growth is zero."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885?via%3Dihub

 

Even the unweighted results show very little change. So given that this is a 6 point increase, we could expect a reduction of 0.1% based even on unweighted projections.

Edited February 4, 2023 by placeholder

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, nchuckle said:

So how might one get a conviction for "being a bad economist" ? 
But being found guilty of making inappropriate payments (on more than one occasion) to a third party rather calls into question one’s judgement (at the very least!) wouldn’t you agree? 
But I’m interested in your views of what Sunak's forthcoming increase from 19 to 25% corporation tax will have on FDI and consequently UK productivity if you have any interesting thoughts to spare..?

Which is all a deflection from your personal attack and the fact there are no economic benefits to Brexit.

[stevenl]

38 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

You might be advised to stick to simple one dimensional topics if  ,as is becoming increasingly evident,you find wider discussion too perplexing  . Where did I mention anything about Brexit,or are you just making another lazy assumption? If you have to invent something I didn’t say to support an argument then you don’t have one. 

Look at the topic. Discussing this without mentioning Brexit is foolishness.

As usual personal attacks again.

[Rimmer]

A personal attack has been removed

[Chongalulu]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Look at the topic. Discussing this without mentioning Brexit is foolishness.

As usual personal attacks again.

Ah,so my mentioning a significant change to corporation tax ,with all the implications that has,is ‘deflection' while Brexit ,which you simply randomly threw in without any quantification simply as a sound byte. The topic is the economic forecast of IMF,and you only imply corporation tax is ‘deflection' because I suggest you were likely  unaware of the details and understanding of its implications.  You also just keep falling back on ‘personal attacks' accusation simply because I’m exposing flaws in your wider understanding evidenced by the shallowness of nothing more than a simple and unsubstantiated  repetition of such accusation.

[Phoenix Rising]

Again I'm asking if anyone can link to a site where one can donate to the cold and hungry in the UK? I would have thought by now that the EU would have aid shipments (food and blankets) going but apparently the war in Ukraine (rightly) takes priority.

Still, it's tough to see a once proud UK in such a bad shape. The only "consolation" is that it's mostly your own doing.

[youreavinalaff]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Which is all a deflection from your personal attack and the fact there are no economic benefits to Brexit.

That's a bold statement. Would you care to elaborate? Facts to back up your statement might be a good idea 

[hotandsticky]

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's a bold statement. Would you care to elaborate? Facts to back up your statement might be a good idea 

Ha! Facts to back up a statement from the poster in question???

 

You're 'avin a laff.

Edited February 4, 2023 by hotandsticky

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's a bold statement. Would you care to elaborate? Facts to back up your statement might be a good idea 

Done to death already in the Brexit threads.

This whole thread is another fact there are no economic benefits to Brexit.

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Done to death already in the Brexit threads.

This whole thread is another fact there are no economic benefits to Brexit.

You are correct. Done to death, by opinions.

 

I'm failing to see any facts. As with the other threads.

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

You are correct. Done to death, by opinions.

 

I'm failing to see any facts. As with the other threads.

 

 

Its time to move on and accept that the UK has left the E.U and we wont be going back .

   Telling a few older guy living in Thailand how bad Brexit is, isn't going to change anything 

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its time to move on and accept that the UK has left the E.U and we wont be going back .

   Telling a few older guy living in Thailand how bad Brexit is, isn't going to change anything 

Actually, the demographics are such that the odds are very strong that the UK will be going back.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's a bold statement. Would you care to elaborate? Facts to back up your statement might be a good idea 

Here's a fact for you. And it's a powerful one. The 2 most important factors in determing what percentage  of trade they do with each other is proximity and the size of a nation's economy. Economists call this  relationship  gravity. No amount of pie-in-the-sky trade deals with more distant nations will make up for the fact that it's now a lot harder for the UK to trade with its closest neighbors.

The gravity model of international trade in international economics is a model that, in its traditional form, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes and distance between two units. Research shows that there is "overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance.^[1] 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

[Chongalulu]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

No, I wouldn't agree that a technical matter of economic judgement has anything at all to do with her bad judgement in the other case. None at all. Nada. Zip. The motive behind your attempt to conflate 2 kinds of "judgement" is transparently obvious.

 

As for productivity. here's the results of a meta study that analyzed 41 different studies:

"According to the unweighted average of all estimates in our data set, a cut in the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points would increase annual GDP growth rates by about 0.2 percentage points. However, we find evidence for publication selectivity in favour of reporting growth-enhancing effects of corporate tax cuts. Correcting for this bias, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the effect of corporate taxes on growth is zero."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885?via%3Dihub

 

Even the unweighted results show very little change. So given that this is a 6 point increase, we could expect a reduction of 0.1% based even on unweighted projections.

You do understand what the major role of the IMF is ,beyond forecasting (the clue is in the name) ? 
So in that crucial,fundamental  major role of IMF discerning who gets loans and other payments Lagarde was so deficient that she was found guilty of negligence (not simply poor judgement) by a French court ,which in itself can carry criminal censure. Now if you don’t think such a major shortfall in her fundamental role as head of the organization doesn’t call into question her judgement,then you are setting the bar extremely low. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

49 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, the demographics are such that the odds are very strong that the UK will be going back.

Still waiting for all the old people to die ?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, nchuckle said:

You do understand what the major role of the IMF is ,beyond forecasting (the clue is in the name) ? 
So in that crucial,fundamental  major role of IMF discerning who gets loans and other payments Lagarde was so deficient that she was found guilty of negligence (not simply poor judgement) by a French court ,which in itself can carry criminal censure. Now if you don’t think such a major shortfall in her fundamental role as head of the organization doesn’t call into question her judgement,then you are setting the bar extremely low. 

Trying the exact same ploy again? Her judgements as an economist depend on her knowledge and mastery of economics. This thread is about the IMF forecast. Nothing to do with her bad decision not to appeal the judgement of an arbitration panel. offense.

And whether or not she what she was convicted of could "carry  criminal censure", in this case the course specified that it would not constitute a criminal record.

[youreavinalaff]

43 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's a fact for you. And it's a powerful one. The 2 most important factors in determing what percentage  of trade they do with each other is proximity and the size of a nation's economy. Economists call this  relationship  gravity. No amount of pie-in-the-sky trade deals with more distant nations will make up for the fact that it's now a lot harder for the UK to trade with its closest neighbors.

The gravity model of international trade in international economics is a model that, in its traditional form, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes and distance between two units. Research shows that there is "overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance.^[1] 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

Well done. Although quoting Wikipedia is laughable.

 

However, I requested facts to prove the comment " there are no economic benefits to Brexit"

[placeholder]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

Well done. Although quoting Wikipedia is laughable.

 

If you have a problem with the definition offered by Wikipedia, let me know what that is. If not, you've got nothing.

Here's a link to the source of Wikipedia's definition.

[1] 

Journal of Economic Integration 22(4), December 2007; 780-818 Trade Effects of the Euro: a Comparison of Estimators Richard Baldwin Graduate Institute of International Studies Daria Taglioni European Central Ban

 

Looks quite respectable to me. But if you know something discreditable about the authors of the piece or the journal they published their work in, please share it with me.

 

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

If you have a problem with the definition offered by Wikipedia, let me know what that is. If not, you've got nothing.

Here's a link to the source of Wikipedia's definition.

[1] 

Journal of Economic Integration 22(4), December 2007; 780-818 Trade Effects of the Euro: a Comparison of Estimators Richard Baldwin Graduate Institute of International Studies Daria Taglioni European Central Ban

 

Looks quite respectable to me. But if you know something discreditable about the authors of the piece or the journal they published their work in, please share it with me.

 

If the authors are respectable, why not quote directly from their source rather than Wikipedia? A website that anyone can edit at anytime.

 

Anyway, do you have the facts I asked for?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

However, I requested facts to prove the comment " there are no economic benefits to Brexit"

Well, how exactly does one prove a negative like that? I'm sure there must be some economic benefits to Brexit. At the moment, I can't come up with what they might be.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

If the authors are respectable, why not quote directly from their source rather than Wikipedia? A website that anyone can edit at anytime.

 

Anyway, do you have the facts I asked for?

Or maybe you could abandon your reflexive snobbism. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by placeholder

[onthedarkside]

Trolling meme removed