Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Yeah, but you would say that.
Even before this latest report, the methodology behind their fictitious Doppelgänger UK had been called into question.
Sure. There are always people who want to nitpick; many on here, especially those who voted for Brexit and naturally enough psychologically resist accepting the ensuing damage.
I myself haven’t drilled into the doppelgänger model, and I would have some questions, for example to what extent it relies on the US which as we know hasn’t seen the same magnitude of issues we see in Europe.
But all of this is, to my mind, pettifogging. What evidence we have - and I don’t think the doppelgänger estimate is the only one we have - suggests that the Brexit “hit” since 2016 is roughly the same magnitude as that experienced by Russia this year due to sanctions.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Yeah, but you would say that.
Even before this latest report, the methodology behind their fictitious Doppelgänger UK had been called into question.
Sure. There are always people who want to nitpick; many on here, especially those who voted for Brexit and naturally enough psychologically resist accepting the ensuing damage.
I myself haven’t drilled into the doppelgänger model, and I would have some questions, for example to what extent it relies on the US which as we know hasn’t seen the same magnitude of issues we see in Europe.
But all of this is, to my mind, pettifogging. What evidence we have - and I don’t think the doppelgänger estimate is the only one we have - suggests that the Brexit “hit” since 2016 is roughly the same magnitude as that experienced by Russia this year due to sanctions.
Isn't it also in the same ballpark as Mainstream Economists were predicting back in 2016?
What most of us missed was that, even if it was five percent future growth just not happening, it was still going to hurt.
Trouble with any estimates is people don't believe them. So many estimates get bandied about in advance, most of them very wrong, so even when one is correct people have little way of telling, and estimates of the impact of something afterwards are a little better, but just as variable depending on what is being measured and how. So again people might agree it feels true, but it will be easy for someone to suggest it is not correct.
As with any model, the key is who is making the assumptions and, from that, the assumptions they make. This is from the Centre for European Reform. Their use of the EU flag should give a clear indication of their likely views and, therefore, what assumptions they are likely to be using *
* i.e. they will be assuming a worst case scenario or near enough.
Yeah, but you would say that.
Even before this latest report, the methodology behind their fictitious Doppelgänger UK had been called into question.
Sure. There are always people who want to nitpick; many on here, especially those who voted for Brexit and naturally enough psychologically resist accepting the ensuing damage.
I myself haven’t drilled into the doppelgänger model, and I would have some questions, for example to what extent it relies on the US which as we know hasn’t seen the same magnitude of issues we see in Europe.
But all of this is, to my mind, pettifogging. What evidence we have - and I don’t think the doppelgänger estimate is the only one we have - suggests that the Brexit “hit” since 2016 is roughly the same magnitude as that experienced by Russia this year due to sanctions.
Isn't it also in the same ballpark as Mainstream Economists were predicting back in 2016?
What most of us missed was that, even if it was five percent future growth just not happening, it was still going to hurt.
Well, it compounds. It’s 5% now, give or take. It could be 10% by 2030. At which stage it will be REALLY noticeable when you travel abroad.
Less so for Londoners, of course, and as always, which means that some opinion makers can pretend to themselves that it’s not really happening.
In a months time those saying we can't possibly afford the pay rises will be claiming credit for the government boosting earnings.
Such is life under the dead end followed by a protracted u-turn party.
We cant afford these payrises because the people you will need to take money off to pay for them will often be earning less.
I think they save money. We keep experienced nurses who have better skills and more training working for longer. We get a lot of their pay rises back in tax and lower benefits anyway. We get shorter waiting lists and get people back into work more quickly. We pay less in massively bloated agency rates.
A properly functioning economy, including health, education and transports breeds confidence in the wider economy and encourages investment. If we accept broken Britain and a shit infrastructure we will just get further decline.
Comments
I myself haven’t drilled into the doppelgänger model, and I would have some questions, for example to what extent it relies on the US which as we know hasn’t seen the same magnitude of issues we see in Europe.
But all of this is, to my mind, pettifogging.
What evidence we have - and I don’t think the doppelgänger estimate is the only one we have - suggests that the Brexit “hit” since 2016 is roughly the same magnitude as that experienced by Russia this year due to sanctions.
What most of us missed was that, even if it was five percent future growth just not happening, it was still going to hurt.
It could be 10% by 2030. At which stage it will be REALLY noticeable when you travel abroad.
Less so for Londoners, of course, and as always, which means that some opinion makers can pretend to themselves that it’s not really happening.
A properly functioning economy, including health, education and transports breeds confidence in the wider economy and encourages investment. If we accept broken Britain and a shit infrastructure we will just get further decline.