this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
59 points (95.4% liked)

UK Politics

3108 readers
84 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Snapshot of Eurozone inflation falls to 5.5% in sharp contrast to UK. Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

Lol, no they're not. Productivity is not GDP...

And the 4% is over 15 years and is a result of loss of comparative advantage.

If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

[–] G4Z 1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?

If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?

Let me ask you, what do you think it's cost the UK per year in billion pounds?

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?

But that's what the forecast says. 4% of productivity lost over the long term of 15 years due to loss of comparative advantage

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis

But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.

The loss of comparative advantage is replaced, I'd argue, with competitive advantage which has a much stronger effect. The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI

GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow...

The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect

I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities' innovations.

[–] G4Z -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

long-run productivity is GDP mate. Unless you have something which actually says otherwise? Even assuming it is GDP per capita, so what?

But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.

Yes it is included, there isn't any.

The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI

Uh-hu.. back to maybe and could then...

GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow…

Mate, I work in IT, have done for 25 years. There is no EU regulation preventing productivity increasing thanks to automation, what a load of nonsense.

Also, we don't have fewer people do we, we have more people.

The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect

Show me a source from somebody credible that says that exactly.

I have a credible source says it's costing 100bn a year.

Here’s another one

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-damage-uk-economy-covid-b2308178.html

Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4 per cent smaller than if the country had stayed in the EU, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog confirmed on Sunday.

Pretty clear that if you ask me, from a national newspaper.

I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities’ innovations.

I predict it could all have been done in the EU, and research and development would have been easier and cheaper to collaborate on to boot.

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not maybes or coulds. Overly restrictive regs, because all EU law is civil law, not common as in the UK. I doubt you'll ever admit you don't know what you're talking about though

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779611/eu-ai-act-open-letter-artificial-intelligence-regulation-renault-siemens

What's the long range population forecast for the UK genius?

[–] G4Z 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes it is maybes or could, that AI act is still not law and you have no idea what regulation the UK gov may or may not introduce. Further, I don't believe anything in that act will prevent AI development anyway, which regulation is it exactly you think is going to be 'overly restrictive', they all sound very reasonable to me and I'm a technical person who works in IT, unlike you.

So you ever going to answer my question then?

What figure do you put on the cost per year, if you disagree with the OBR's 100bn per year?

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I know how UK common law is written and how civil regs are, I'm not even going to begin arguing unless you demonstrate that you know the difference

And the cost? UK govt has actually spent around £8b on brexit preparations

The investment delay will be recouped

UK was 2nd in Europe on GDP per capita in 2016 and is still 2nd in Europe in 2022 so it's negligible.

[–] G4Z 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And what is your source for that 8bn?

Is that all the costs, I asked how much per year?

UK was 2nd in Europe on GDP per capita in 2016 and is still 2nd in Europe in 2022 so it’s negligible.

The measure is against where we would have been had we remained in the EU though.

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/brexit-spending-government-preparations

It's impossible to prove where the UK would have been, a 100 year pandemic makes the brexit effect just noise. The synthetic counter factual models are smart but stupid.

You do realise that your 4% forecast is also a could and maybe yeah?

Here are the actual facts on GDP per capita. Maybe you understand pictures more easily than words

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GB-XC-FR-DE-ES-IT&start=2016

[–] G4Z 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So I asked you, how much is Brexit costing per year, and you've given me what was spent to prepare for Brexit. Can you see how these are not the same thing?

I am getting a little tired of your constant dishonesty, I'm trying to be charitable with you, but I don't really see how it's possible to misunderstand such a simple question if you are as smart as you claim to be.

It’s impossible to prove where the UK would have been, a 100 year pandemic makes the brexit effect just noise. The synthetic counter factual models are smart but stupid.

Well of course because it's predicated on a model of where we would have been had we not left the EU. It's extrapolation in that sense, but it's more than you have isn't it?

Here are the actual facts on GDP per capita. Maybe you understand pictures more easily than words

Still not relevant to anything though, because as I said the measure is against where we would have been had we stayed in, not how well we still stack up in some rankings.

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Still not relevant to anything though, because as I said the measure is against where we would have been had we stayed in, not how well we still stack up in some rankings.

It's clearly relevant to our nearest economic peers...it's actual data, in the measure that the OBR forecast, and not educated guesses.

I'm tired of your dullness, goodbye

[–] G4Z 2 points 1 year ago

Well it was certainly interesting to engage, I'll know exactly what to watch out for with you on your future posts.

Have a lovely evening :)

[–] emerty 1 points 1 year ago

long-run productivity is GDP mate. Unless you have something which actually says otherwise? Even assuming it is GDP per capita, so what?

🤦‍♂️

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)