Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Wales would suffer a 9.5% hit to GDP

You need to find a better reporter, one who can understand what she's reading.

It's not a 9.5% hit to GDP, it's a 9.5% reduction in expected growth (over whatever period it is, I forget).

So if growth was going to be 2%, it will instead be about 10% less, at 1.8%.

That of course has consequences on how much money people have in the future, but just not what that very-wrong article says.

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You need to find a better reporter, one who can understand what she's reading.

It's not a 9.5% hit to GDP, it's a 9.5% reduction in expected growth (over whatever period it is, I forget).

So if growth was going to be 2%, it will instead be about 10% less, at 1.8%.

That of course has consequences on how much money people have in the future, but just not what that very-wrong article says.

Isn't that just semantics though? Since they're both predictions (and I take on board that these are still educated guesses), if GDP fails to grow by 9.5%, you'd have your estimate of what the new GDP would have been, and under Brexit, then there's a 9.5% reduction in GDP compared to what it would have been?

Where's Russy, he's an accountant isn't he? Are there any economists here?

[feral chile]

I'm not sure whether this is just confirmation bias, but just finished watching season 3 of Mr Robot:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/billionaire-george-soros-backs-campaign-to-reverse-brexit/ar-BBIPGzP?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

Quote

A key pro-EU campaign to reverse the Brexit vote has been given more than £400,000 of funding by American billionaire George Soros, the Guardian can disclose.

The business magnate, who is the founder of the Open Society Foundation (OSF), made more than £1bn betting against the pound on Black Wednesday which forced the British government to pull it from the European exchange rate mechanism.

The Best for Britain campaign, which advocates remaining in the EU rather than fighting for a soft Brexit, has received the six-figure sum from OSF since the June 2017 election, sources have told the Guardian.

The campaign is chaired by Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a former UK government minister and deputy UN secretary general.

It was cofounded by Gina Miller, who took the UK government to court over the triggering of the Article 50 process to leave the European Union.

Malloch Brown said the campaign group had followed all rules and regulations governing financial contribution. “We, like millions of people believe that Britain should lead, not leave Europe,” he said.

George Soros “We work with campaigners, businesses, unions, politicians and community groups to make sure everyone has a strong campaigning voice,” he said.

“George Soros’s foundations have, along with a number of other major donors, also made significant contributions to our work. Indeed through his foundations he has contributed £400,000. But our small donors have collectively contributed more and the commitments of the other major donors also exceed this amount. So he is an important and valued donor but his funding is one among many sources.”

Best for Britain said it had collected more than £413,000 in small donations from sympathetic members of the public.

“We are proud of the campaign we have embarked on,” Malloch Brown said. “We think the British people deserve a final say on the Brexit deal and believe the country has been led down a dangerous false turn.

Gina Miller “This is a democratic and patriotic effort to recover our future and we welcome support for our efforts from many quarters. We believe we speak for a democratic majority in a country now facing up to the consequences of a Brexit negotiation that has been captured by a handful of hardliners.”

Eloise Todd, the chief executive of the Best for Britain campaign, was a former executive director of Global Policy at The ONE Campaign. The campaign is supported by politicians including former Labour minister Andrew Andonis and former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron. Adonis is planning a tour of the UK focussing on changing the minds of Brexit votes in the coming months.

The organisation has a full-time staff of around 10 people and a training programme led by Mike Moffo, a senior organiser for former US president Barack Obama. 

 

All the elite that are involved in this (and no doubt the Leave campaign).

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Isn't that just semantics though?

nope. The difference between what your report says and what it should really say is fucking humongous - like 200Bn (for whole UK) less GDP a year than currently.

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

if GDP fails to grow by 9.5%, you'd have your estimate of what the new GDP would have been, and under Brexit, then there's a 9.5% reduction in GDP compared to what it would have been?

Nope.

A 9.5% (let's call it 10% for ease) fall in GDP would mean the country had only 90% of the GDP it's got now.

A 9.5% fall in growth means that the country still gets richer, just not as rich as it would have done. Its new riches are only 90% of what they might have been (but those new riches are on top of 100% of current GDP).

12 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Where's Russy, he's an accountant isn't he? Are there any economists here?

what do you need Russy for? That report you presented as a very basic factual error in what it's reported, which makes a huge difference to what it says.

Bin that report and go and find one where it's been correctly reported.

(I'm pointing out the starting error with that report, not critiquing anything else of it)

[gary1979666]

You don't need an accountant to work it out (although I'm one) - it's just maths.  Neil's sums are right and Feral is confusing a 10% reduction to a 10% reduction in the rate of growth.

[feral chile]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nope. The difference between what your report says and what it should really say is fucking humongous - like 200Bn (for whole UK) less GDP a year than currently.

Nope.

A 9.5% (let's call it 10% for ease) fall in GDP would mean the country had only 90% of the GDP it's got now.

A 9.5% fall in growth means that the country still gets richer, just not as rich as it would have done. Its new riches are only 90% of what they might have been (but those new riches are on top of 100% of current GDP).

what do you need Russy for? That report you presented as a very basic factual error in what it's reported, which makes a huge difference to what it says.

Bin that report and go and find one where it's been correctly reported.

(I'm pointing out the starting error with that report, not critiquing anything else of it)

Quote

The effect on jobs, businesses, livelihoods and property values of a 9.5% drop in GDP - as compared to the size of the economy if we didn't leave the EU - would be immense.

from the article.

[feral chile]

i'm struggling with your predicted growth argument. If someone had a problem that prevented them reaching their full height, you wouldn't say, 'it's inaccurate to say you've lost out - you never got shorter, did you?'

Edited February 8, 2018 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

On 2/5/2018 at 10:20 AM, zahidf said:

Yeah, but the Tories are in govt. Whilst im not happy with Corbyns stance on the EU, the luxury of opposition means you can oppose  without TOO much detail to an extent. They are trying a balancing act (which i feel has gone a little too long).

Corbyn is naturally pro brexit and was voted in by predominantly anti brexit labour members, what is his incentive to change course?

Surely part of being an effective opposition is to put political pressure on the government to change course. The labour shadow cabinet have been a useless opposition. But hey labour supporters can stand in a field and sing his name and everything will be ok.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

from the article.

the article is wrong in it's very first sentence, so it's hardly surprising if it continues with that wrong.

[pink_triangle]

18 hours ago, zahidf said:

Do you think there are enough votes in the Tory party rebels (to counteract the Labour rebels in the north and dennis skinner e.t.c?)

How are you defining labour rebel?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

i'm struggling with your predicted growth argument. If someone had a problem that prevented them reaching their full height, you wouldn't say, 'it's inaccurate to say you've lost out - you never got shorter, did you?'

yep, it's a "loss" that no will ever notice in that respect.

But for you, who continually moans about poverty while lifestyles are improving, the smaller amount of growth perhaps won't be enough to satisfy your expectations for the future.

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

You don't need an accountant to work it out (although I'm one) - it's just maths.  Neil's sums are right and Feral is confusing a 10% reduction to a 10% reduction in the rate of growth.

erm no i'm not. I'm a bloody sci fi fan, I know all about future projections and alternate time streams

I'm saying that it's a potential future reduction versus a  potential future situation after projected growth.

No Brexit = x (in the future)

Brexit = x-9.5% (in the same number of years future)

x = predicted GDP including projected growth.

Which in the future would be a great big might have been kick up the backside for some of my fellow Welshies.

I'm not confusing time zones at all. we're looking at 2 future predictions, both based on what might be under one scenario and what might be under the other.

But thought experiment wise - if you could change time 15 years in the future, Brexit/no Brexit, there would be a 9.5 reduction in the Brexit time stream of our alternate realities.

Edited February 8, 2018 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

How are you defining labour rebel?

dunno how he is, but towards brexit there's 4 types of MP

1. those who are for remain.

2. those who are for brexit

3. those who are for remain but whose constituency voted brexit

4. those who are for brexit but whose constituency voted remain.

The first can be counted on to remain for remain, and the second can be counted on to stay for brexit.

It's the 3rd & 4th groups who can be worked on, and where circumstances as well can work on them.

But if no one is trying to work a different position, all we get is the tory position with Labour's passive endorsement.

[feral chile]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it's a "loss" that no will ever notice in that respect.

But for you, who continually moans about poverty while lifestyles are improving, the smaller amount of growth perhaps won't be enough to satisfy your expectations for the future.

Oh I think you might in my analogy

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

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

Edited February 8, 2018 by feral chile

[feral chile]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it's a "loss" that no will ever notice in that respect.

But for you, who continually moans about poverty while lifestyles are improving, the smaller amount of growth perhaps won't be enough to satisfy your expectations for the future.

sweeping, oversimplistic generalisation.

poverty is defined as less than others. Not whether people now have toilets compared to a centure ago.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Which in the future would be a great big might have been kick up the backside for some of my fellow Welshies.

unfortunately, they and you suffer from the same affliction - the idea that things should always get better (or money can be spent to make it better) without any reference to how the wealth required to make things better is generated.

And that where you say right now things can be magick'd up to port things, they think there'll be that magic after we leave the EU.

The cure to this affliction for you both is economic reality, if you're prepared to take the medicine.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

sweeping, oversimplistic generalisation.

Nope, it's really not.

Just because some lifestyles are not at the middle-class average doesn't mean the lifestyles for those at the very bottom haven't kept on improving.

 

Just now, feral chile said:

poverty is defined as less than others.

for those with an over-blown sense of entitlement, yes it is.

Those in real poverty would laugh their arses off at that idea.

[feral chile]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, it's really not.

Just because some lifestyles are not at the middle-class average doesn't mean the lifestyles for those at the very bottom haven't kept on improving.

 

for those with an over-blown sense of entitlement, yes it is.

Those in real poverty would laugh their arses off at that idea.

over time.

you can't use that as a definition of poverty, just as you can't compare future figures against current figures to work out if we'll be better off after brexit. You have to compare like with like, depending on which variables you are comparing.  

Poverty is in relation to others now. You can't say, oh so you can't afford gas to run your central heating? At least your lifestyle has improved enough for you to have that central heating you can't run.AND fridges and TV's, and a car to get to work, if you could afford to run it. And the internet, so you can compare your lot with erveryone else much more easily nowadays, you lucky fella you.

You wouldn't have had that half a century ago, no Siree.

count yourself lucky, you're not up a chimney or down a pit at 12. 

You're way better off these days. pity that everyone else is way better off than you these days. So they're way WAY better off, and you're only way.

Never you mind, eh?

[feral chile]

44 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

poverty is defined as less than others. 

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

for those with an over-blown sense of entitlement, yes it is.

Those in real poverty would laugh their arses off at that idea.

 

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/definitions-poverty

oh and before you start, we're talking about the UK and the EU, so no shifting of goalposts allowed.

Edited February 8, 2018 by feral chile

[feral chile]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

unfortunately, they and you suffer from the same affliction - the idea that things should always get better (or money can be spent to make it better) without any reference to how the wealth required to make things better is generated.

And that where you say right now things can be magick'd up to port things, they think there'll be that magic after we leave the EU.

The cure to this affliction for you both is economic reality, if you're prepared to take the medicine.

Hey I'm not predicting growth in the Welsh economy, apparently that's what being projected though.

It might be all those infrastructure changes etc. that are probably under threat now.

One of the hardest things for me to accept is that we need the greedy fat cats. The risk takers, who get financially rewarded for being opportunistic. 

maybe they couldn't be arsed if they couldn't get rich quick by exploiting some opportunity somewhere. 

but one way or another, they're getting rich off the backs of others, and I don't like the whole capitalist model that builds our economy on this.

i'd prefer co-operatives.

Edited February 8, 2018 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

you can't use that as a definition of poverty

Yes I can, I just did.

and you don't own the definition of poverty, and the definition you gave is not a definitive and only version of poverty.

Just because you think you should be richer doesn't mean that you should be. Too simple for you?

 

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

just as you can't compare future figures against current figures to work out if we'll be better off after brexit. You have to compare like with like, depending on which variables you are comparing.  

There are only forecasts for future figures, and if we want to know the forecast for a future with everything much the same or many things changed, we can *only* forecast it.

How accurate the forecasts turn out to be depends of the take the same path as outlined for the forecast and how well that forecast forecasted the factors which input into the future.

 

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Poverty is in relation to others now. You can't say, oh so you can't afford gas to run your central heating? At least your lifestyle has improved enough for you to have that central heating you can't run.AND fridges and TV's, and a car to get to work, if you could afford to run it. And the internet, so you can compare your lot with erveryone else much more easily nowadays, you lucky fella you.

You wouldn't have had that half a century ago, no Siree.

count yourself lucky, you're not up a chimney or down a pit at 12. 

what are you babbling on about? I've no idea.

 

 

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You're way better off these days. pity that everyone else is way better off than you these days. So they're way WAY better off, and you're only way.

Never you mind, eh?

no shit sherlock. 

Some people put in greater efforts to get their extra. Some people don't piss what they get up the wall and accumulate extra. There's reasons for difference which are outside of any marxist ideal.

Oh, except the marxist ideal was about reward for effort anyway, and not reward for sitting on your arse. Lots of people seem to have missed that bit.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Hey I'm not predicting growth in the Welsh economy, apparently that's what being projected though.

as it was a year ago, a decade ago, etc.

---------

DOH!

Just realised what's going on.

You're embarrassed at posting the article, and here comes the smothering to try and wash it away.

Been round this one with you so many times before.

</not playing>

 

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as it was a year ago, a decade ago, etc.

---------

DOH!

Just realised what's going on.

You're embarrassed at posting the article, and here comes the smothering to try and wash it away.

Been round this one with you so many times before.

</not playing>

 

what the fuck you talking about now? YOU'RE the one saying these are projected growth figures. I haven't made up the figures. Nor the official poverty definitions either.

though you seem perfectly happy to adopt the Tory definition over the established one that Labour used.

Life opportunities versus relative wealth.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

YOU'RE the one saying these are projected growth figures.

No, the govt's financial-projection research does.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Nor the official poverty definitions either.

which has nothing to do with the fact that people *DO* have better lifestyles today than in the past (ie: absolute poverty is lesser), or the fact that you have an attachment to the idea that always-getting-better should be guaranteed, and at a faster rate than it's currently happening.