EU & Brexit Bunker

[Psamathe]

She was born in UK. I presume that gives her rights to work here?

Irrespective of rights I wonder if the Government's "Hostile Environment" might mean some employers given two capable candidates might opt for the individual where they won't be getting questions from UK ICE even though all the rights and paperwork are in order.

 

[briantrumpet]

Ha, amused to see these two side by side in my Bluesky feed.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Analysis of Brexit benefits from
'a professional economist who wanted us to keep his identity confidential'.
Can't see a problem with that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-far-better-for-britain-than-you-might-think/

 

[PurplePenguin]

Analysis of Brexit benefits from
'a professional economist who wanted us to keep his identity confidential'.
Can't see a problem with that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-far-better-for-britain-than-you-might-think/

The article is pretty poor, but the point from the economist is actually a good way of showing how the counterfactual models do not work - something I have argued here every time they are referenced.

His bright idea was to use some of the same counterfactual economic models that appear to show Brexit has done huge damage to Britain. But he, rather naughtily, applied one of those models – that Remainers love to cite – to data for France, Germany and Italy. What he found was rather comical. That our EU neighbours by this scenario come out worse than Britain does: France “loses” 7 per cent of GDP and Germany “loses” 12 per cent – far more than the 4 per cent “loss” the model shows Brexit is supposed to cause Britain.

 

[Stevo 666]

Analysis of Brexit benefits from
'a professional economist who wanted us to keep his identity confidential'.
Can't see a problem with that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-far-better-for-britain-than-you-might-think/

Probably because he doesn't want abuse from angry economists who want to rejoin and assume that they are right. Sounds a bit familiar?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Probably because he doesn't want abuse from angry economists who want to rejoin and assume that they are right. Sounds a bit familiar?

Yes @Stevo 666, I'm sure you're right. Now eat your broccoli like a good boy.

 

[Stevo 666]

Yes @Stevo 666, I'm sure you're right. Now eat your broccoli like a good boy.

I guess it does sound familiar given the narky reply

 

[First Aspect]

The article is pretty poor, but the point from the economist is actually a good way of showing how the counterfactual models do not work - something I have argued here every time they are referenced.

Economic predictions of any kind appear to the layman only to be marginally better than tealeaves.

Genuine question: Would one expect a counterfactual model of the UK economy to work for any other economy?

 

[First Aspect]

Just as a precaution, answering no on the basis that none of them work isn't a suitable answer. If you want, answer the question as though I had asked if it would be expected to work better or worse for any other economy.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Economic predictions of any kind appear to the layman only to be marginally better than tealeaves.

Genuine question: Would one expect a counterfactual model of the UK economy to work for any other economy?

The quoted economist used counterfactual models of other ecomomies and compared it to how they actually performed, so the German model was based on historic German performance relative to other countries and what this implied growth should have been.

It's a pretty basic test of the approach.

What it shows is that European growth is no longer as correlated with US growth as it once was. That sells less than "I knew Brexit was an economic disaster, and this proves I was right".

 

[First Aspect]

The quoted economist used counterfactual models of other ecomomies and compared it to how they actually performed, so the German model was based on historic German performance relative to other countries and what this implied growth should have been.

It's a pretty basic test of the approach.

What it shows is that European growth is no longer as correlated with US growth as it once was. That sells less than "I knew Brexit was an economic disaster, and this proves I was right".

The article is paywalled. But the summary says the guy picked one out of several possible models, but I can't tell what the other say about Britain or the other EU countries.

And if the US is less guidance than previously, do other models give it less weight, the same prediction for the UK but different ones for rEU?

 

[PurplePenguin]

The article is paywalled. But the summary says the guy picked one out of several possible models, but I can't tell what the other say about Britain or the other EU countries.

And if the US is less guidance than previously, do other models give it less weight, the same prediction for the UK but different ones for rEU?

The rest of the article is Telegraph nonsense. All the various models assume some sort of weighting, so none of them will be the same. It's not an exact science, so they look an arbitrary number of years and come up with something they think is reasonable, and then they apply it forward to give the counter-factual. I assume the Telegraph chap picked the worst performing countries and most favourable weightings to make the point, so I don't consider it a robust bit of analysis; however, I do think it would have been a sensible control study for all the economists who have published their Brexit impact results. It's the sort of thing a scientist would have done.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I assume

That was the point of my original comment - the Telegraph article is just bollocks unless there's a link to the actual analysis. As far as I'm aware there isn't.

It's the sort of thing a scientist would have done.

But they're economists?

 

[briantrumpet]

That was the point of my original comment - the Telegraph article is just bollocks unless there's a link to the actual analysis. As far as I'm aware there isn't.

But they're economists?

The Brexit supporters' line has been to rubbish all counterfactuals in order to say that it's impossible to say that Brexit has had a negative effect on the UK economy, so it's no surprise that The Telegraph is sticking to talking bollocks still. AFAIK Jeremy Warner is the only one who's let slip it might not have been the economic miracle that was promised.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The Brexit supporters' line has been to rubbish all counterfactuals in order to say that it's impossible to say that Brexit has had a negative effect on the UK economy, so it's no surprise that The Telegraph is sticking to talking bollocks still. AFAIK Jeremy Warner is the only one who's let slip it might not have been the economic miracle that was promised.

In all fairness, they are a load of rubbish. The UK has had growth similar to its European peers, but worse than the US. Pre-Brexit the UK showed greater correlation with the US. Did Brexit affect this or was it something else? I think your (and others) desire to show it has been a disaster is not that dissimilar to those that hoped for an economic miracle.