emerty

joined 2 years ago
[–] emerty 4 points 2 years ago

Vaybe it's Valvoline

[–] emerty 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm still waiting for the Abba party one

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago (3 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

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago

Very reminiscent of the cold war

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 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.

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago

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

🤦‍♂️

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago

GDP growth was similar in the twentieth century and the nineteenth, averaging 2.1 per cent in both cases. Higher productivity growth in the twentieth century therefore is associated with weaker growth of total hours worked, due to a combination of weaker employment growth and falling average hours

You don't understand your own link, 🤡

[–] emerty 2 points 2 years ago
[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 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?

[–] emerty 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

view more: ‹ prev next ›