Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You might be talking about short term horizons but OB hasn’t set this. Under present circumstances, nobody can fix a timescale. But you can be sure that British business will take us forward in due course. Only Remainers would challenge that.

Hope that helps.

The timescale was set when the FT asked nearly 100 economists how the UK economy would perform in 2022. Old Boy erroneously suggested that their analysis only included the negative impacts of Brexit and not the positive ones.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with these forecasts, as I have said before, is that they emphasise the debit side and are unable to calculate precisely the credit side (as it is the future, and dependent on business decisions).

This is why they are so pessimistic. You can calculate what you have lost, but not what can be gained through new opportunities. Until you know what the private sector plans, that is.

If you actually read the article, rather than just nay-saying it because it doesn’t 100% support your "opportunities" mantra, you would have seen it is not all gloom and doom (there was some…).

Despite the prevailing pessimism over growth, inflation and living standards, several respondents were at pains to point out that it would not be “all doom and gloom” in the year ahead.

They saw scope for a long-awaited rebound in business investment, prompted by labour scarcity, pandemic-induced digitalisation and the need to adopt green technology. These could “nudge businesses into making the types of investment necessary to minimise the dependence on lower productivity jobs”, according to Nina Skero, chief executive of the consultancy Cebr, although she and others stressed that real progress on productivity would take years, and need a much bigger push from the government.

A year from now, however, the state of the UK economy is likely to depend less on what has happened to inflation or investment than on the course the pandemic has taken. As Andrew Hilton, director at the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation, pointed out, a drop in real wages weighed on consumers less than “the gloom provoked by fear of incessant lockdowns”.

“Let’s hope for a post-pandemic boom — finally. It’s the phenomenon most likely to see 2022 end on an optimistic note,” said Diane Coyle, professor of public policy at Cambridge university.

Kitty Ussher, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, also forecast better times ahead. “Ours is an economy that wants to grow,” she said. “For as long as people believe that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, strong demand will keep the fundamentals moving in the right direction.”

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The timescale was set when the FT asked nearly 100 economists how the UK economy would perform in 2022. Old Boy erroneously suggested that their analysis only included the negative impacts of Brexit and not the positive ones.

OB’s response to the FT prediction lengthened the prognosis period. Iirc, the FT supported Remain.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB’s response to the FT prediction lengthened the prognosis period.

He said the economists were unduly pessimistic about the future. The future the economists were talking about was 2022.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You might be talking about short term horizons but OB hasn’t set this. Under present circumstances, nobody can fix a timescale. But you can be sure that British business will take us forward in due course. Only Remainers would challenge that.

Hope that helps.

Remainers whose arguments in the main have been in support of British business and the challenges they now face and your post was about as helpful as Truss, Raab, Patel and krazy Kwarteng"s crap book where they called the British work force lazy, that's how much faith they have in British business

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Remainers whose arguments in the main have been in support of British business and the challenges they now face and your post was about as helpful as Truss, Raab, Patel and krazy Kwarteng"s crap book where they called the British work force lazy, that's how much faith they have in British business

Johnson's government is to some extent a red Conservative one. Wage inflation is an official policy in all but name. The new state aid and takeover regulations encourage more government intervention. More train operating companies (Southeastern, Northern Rail) have been nationalised as has an energy supplier (Bulb) and a defence manufacturer (Sheffield Forgemasters).

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Johnson's government is to some extent a red Conservative one. Wage inflation is an official policy in all but name. The new state aid and takeover regulations encourage more government intervention. More train operating companies (Southeastern, Northern Rail) have been nationalised as has an energy supplier (Bulb) and a defence manufacturer (Sheffield Forgemasters).

A fascinating observation probably worth discussing in its own right.

You could argue that a generation ago, Labour would have handled all of the above after a period of laissez-faire Tory government that might have taken things a bit too far. But Labour is presently so utterly useless that we’re entering year 17 of at least a 19-year spell of Tory government that is still more likely than not to go on to 24 years, given their present majority and Labour’s extremely soft, mid-term poll lead.

So it’s up to the Tories to occupy both ends of the pendulum swing.

(If you want to debate this further please start a new thread for it).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

They are not "pessimistic", they are attempting to be realistic with the information they have - just because it doesn’t match your unbridled optimism (which isn’t even based on any data, just "opportunities"), doesn’t make it pessimistic.

Isn’t the debit side in the future, and dependent on business solutions?

How do you propose to quantify future business decisions which have not yet been made? These forecasts are always pessimistic because we can quantify what we are losing, but not what we are gaining. It’s like trying to nail a jelly to the wall.

The figures are pessimistic obviously because at this stage, we only know what we are losing without being able to calculate how we are benefiting. So the picture looks bleak.

Once businesses come up with ways in which they will take the new opportunities made available, you can start to put figures to those decisions - but not before.

It will take time to get anything like an accurate picture in terms of whether or not Brexit has been a success.

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They look at the whole picture. This is macro economics, not micro economics.

You seem unable to accept there is an economic cost to increased sovereignty. The two are a trade-off, like a see-saw. When one end is up, the other end is down.

You’ve completely missed the point, Andrew. Of course they know the cost. But they don’t know the gains. There’s no point in concentrating on one side of the equation without knowing the other.

Surely, this is obvious.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The timescale was set when the FT asked nearly 100 economists how the UK economy would perform in 2022. Old Boy erroneously suggested that their analysis only included the negative impacts of Brexit and not the positive ones.

I pointed out the problems with forecasting generally, Andrew. The same arguments are there for the short term, but obviously these are magnified significantly for long term projections.

I certainly agree that we will not have made up for the losses in the next year, but over the medium term, this will become much clearer.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’ve completely missed the point, Andrew. Of course they know the cost. But they don’t know the gains. There’s no point in concentrating on one side of the equation without knowing the other.

Surely, this is obvious.

They look at both sides of the equation. You've been informed of this fact many, many times. Surely this is obvious?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They look at both sides of the equation. You've been informed of this fact many, many times. Surely this is obvious?

How do you propose to quantify future business decisions which have not yet been made?

And indeed those decisions in a regulatory environment unknown. For once OB I agree with you. It’s almost impossible to quantify in any meaningful way the entirely hypothetical benefits of leaving the EU on the basis of an unknown regulatory environment.

You can have hope. But it is just that.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They look at both sides of the equation. You've been informed of this fact many, many times. Surely this is obvious?

My point is that they don’t have a very significant part of the information. The figures are incomplete.

I have mentioned this fact many, many times.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My point is that they don’t have a very significant part of the information. The figures are incomplete.

I have mentioned this fact many, many times.

What information is going to have a substantial impact in the next 12 months?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What information is going to have a substantial impact in the next 12 months?

Well, my point is, of course, that this is the known unknown. It would be more honest to point out what we do know, and draw attention to what is needed to redress the balance.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, my point is, of course, that this is the known unknown. It would be more honest to point out what we do know, and draw attention to what is needed to redress the balance.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there. You're quick to say it's all negative so not worth the paper it's written on but not so quick to tell people what is (by your own admission above) needed to redress the balance. Also, have you considered that the experts may have underestimated the negative because there could be something coming that they haven't considered?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, my point is, of course, that this is the known unknown. It would be more honest to point out what we do know, and draw attention to what is needed to redress the balance.

So like it was done in the 2016 campaign then?