The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[Obelix 11]

That's temporary, and the pre-vote spike is not a good comparison point.

 

Really? Its temporary?

 

I want using the pre brexit spike. I was using the 200 day moving average. You might want to look at the numbers again.

 

Sterling fell off a cliff and made everything we import 20% more costly.

[unbeliever 10]

Really? Its temporary?

 

I want using the pre brexit spike. I was using the 200 day moving average. You might want to look at the numbers again.

 

Sterling fell off a cliff and made everything we import 20% more costly.

 

Yes. We were expecting that. But it's caused by uncertainty and that will pass.

[Justin Smith 10]

There is now 69% support for Brexit: Polling data

 

I`d just like to check that if, in a year or two, the figures are reversed, you`ll still be quoting them, and, one assumes, saying we should take notice of them ?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 10:38 ----------

 

Yes [the fall in the pound]. We were expecting that. But it's caused by uncertainty and that will pass.

 

Was it "experts" or "economists" who predicted that ? ! ?

[unbeliever 10]

I`d just like to check that if, in a year or two, the figures are reversed, you`ll still be quoting them, and, one assumes, saying we should take notice of them ?

 

I expect so. I have a pretty good record for admitting it when I find out I'm wrong.

How about you?

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 10:40 ----------

 

 

Was it "experts" or "economists" who predicted that ? ! ?

 

It was both sides of the campaign.

 

Economists certainly have their uses, but their macro-economic predictions are essentially worthless.

[L00b 441]

This is not the "tory mps" negative brexit findings. It's parliament's. It is those of the select committee of parliament, the purpose of which is to keep the government under pressure on the issue. I have a lot of respect for their chair, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the government disagreeing with the views of a select committee.

The report in question is here.

 

I've only skimmed it, but I can't really see anything contentious in it.

 

It all looks very commonsensical to me, and based on the same fact-finding template:

 

(i) this was said by the government

(ii) this is the evidence we've seen since

(iii) so this needs to happens

 

Some of it will be uncomfortable reading for the government, sure.

 

But then that's what always happens when the evidence catches you out winging it, whether you're the government or not.

 

In that respect, the select committee, by bringing the government to task, is simply doing its job indeed. That pro-Leave MPs of the majority supporting the government would refuse to back the select committee's findings (notwithstanding their membership of that committee) is wholly unsurprising. In fact, it's the contrary that would have been surprising.

Edited April 4, 2017 by L00b

[chalga 10]

This is not the "tory mps" negative brexit findings. It's parliament's. It is those of the select committee of parliament, the purpose of which is to keep the government under pressure on the issue. I have a lot of respect for their chair, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the government disagreeing with the views of a select committee.

 

I know what it is,there's no need to re state the obvious.

It can disagree with whatever it wants,whether it is correct to disagree is another matter.

David Davis has recently said that no specific attention has been given to a 'no deal' scenario,and the consequences,so how could May come out with a statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' if nothing has been done to quantify this by her own Brexit negotiators admission?

[Obelix 11]

Yes. We were expecting that. But it's caused by uncertainty and that will pass.

 

So you were expecting some bad macroeconomic data and then have the temerity to ask when there was data?

 

When you were expecting it?

 

And this is debate conducted honestly?

[unbeliever 10]

There was supposed to be a contraction or at least a dramatic slow-down. This never arose. In fact all the economic indicators are rather good.

 

Is it reasonable to expect us to trust the predictions of those who have failed so dramatically thus far? have they discovered their mistake and corrected their assumptions. Are the new assumptions somehow stronger than the old ones?

 

There are too many economists buzzing around who think that they've converted a branch of sociology into a mathematically rigarous hard science without bothering to learn how hard science is actually done. I don't trust them and the evidence of the last 10 years rather validated that.

Edited April 4, 2017 by unbeliever

[Obelix 11]

There was supposed to be a contraction or at least a dramatic slow-down. This never arose. In fact all the economic indicators are rather good.

 

Bold to save the porkie pies.

 

A sudden fall in the currency is never good news. There is a large thing staring you right the face.

 

You asked for one - you got given one. If you are now going to wriggle around and go well well but then I'm sorry you've given up any semblance of reasoned debate, of honour, scientific integrity or logic and I'll be treating you as Loob does now.

 

Think hard. You asked for an bad indicator in macro economic data. You've been given one. You need to accept that - theres no shame or dishonour it doing so and then move on with whatever argument you wanted.

 

To simply handwave it away is intellectually beneath you. It's not something I'd expect of one of the smarter debating people on here. Please don't lower yourself to the levels of some of the characters on here. Think hard.

[unbeliever 10]

Bold to save the porkie pies.

 

A sudden fall in the currency is never good news. There is a large thing staring you right the face.

 

You asked for one - you got given one. If you are now going to wriggle around and go well well but then I'm sorry you've given up any semblance of reasoned debate, of honour, scientific integrity or logic and I'll be treating you as Loob does now.

 

Think hard. You asked for an bad indicator in macro economic data. You've been given one. You need to accept that - theres no shame or dishonour it doing so and then move on with whatever argument you wanted.

 

To simply handwave it away is intellectually beneath you. It's not something I'd expect of one of the smarter debating people on here. Please don't lower yourself to the levels of some of the characters on here. Think hard.

 

 

You have to look at the context.

I asked for bad indicators in the context of having already acknowledged that the fall in the currency was not good. I do think it will recover anyway.

 

But this is not contentious as the UK people were aware of this expected drop when they voted as it was agreed by both campaigns that it would happen.

 

The predictions touted by the remain campaigners were of prompt and highly negative effects on growth.

[Obelix 11]

So it's a lowering of the level then.

 

Pity.

[chalga 10]

There was supposed to be a contraction or at least a dramatic slow-down. This never arose. In fact all the economic indicators are rather good.

 

Is it reasonable to expect us to trust the predictions of those who have failed so dramatically thus far? have they discovered their mistake and corrected their assumptions. Are the new assumptions somehow stronger than the old ones?

 

There are too many economists buzzing around who think that they've converted a branch of sociology into a mathematically rigarous hard science without bothering to learn how hard science is actually done. I don't trust them and the evidence of the last 10 years rather validated that.

 

Why has Hammond predicted a slowdown in the economy due to Brexit and had to borrow money to compensate for it in his budget?