|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 19:47:15 GMT
Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe. Seems this thread has moved on throughout the day. Are we all clear now that both of these estimates are over a 15 year projection period. Estimates will include a 0.16% growth from potential UK-US trade deal and in comparison a no deal UK-EU deal puts a growth reduction of 3.5-5%. AAAAAAAAAARGH
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 19:47:50 GMT
Seems this thread has moved on throughout the day. Are we all clear now that both of these estimates are over a 15 year projection period. Estimates will include a 0.16% growth from potential UK-US trade deal and in comparison a no deal UK-EU deal puts a growth reduction of 3.5-5%. An estimated 0.16% increase in overall GDP over a 15 year period from the proposed UK-US FTA. An estimated, compounded 3%-5% decrease in the rate of growth of GDP over the same period based on 2% GDP growth per annum, between the UK and the EU. Also AAAAAAAAAAAARGH
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 19:48:12 GMT
An estimated 0.16% increase in overall GDP over a 15 year period from the proposed UK-US FTA. An estimated, compounded 3%-5% decrease in the rate of growth of GDP over the same period based on 2% GDP growth per annum, between the UK and the EU. We got there in the end 😄 And after all this we shouldn't even be looking at the impact of GDP, we should be discussing per capita! But that is for another day, I reckon. Time for a well earned beer Roj or what? Agree.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 3, 2020 19:52:22 GMT
An estimated 0.16% increase in overall GDP over a 15 year period from the proposed UK-US FTA. An estimated, compounded 3%-5% decrease in the rate of growth of GDP over the same period based on 2% GDP growth per annum, between the UK and the EU. Also AAAAAAAAAAAARGH Explain your reaction.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 3, 2020 19:56:01 GMT
All the debate about economic forcasts is eyewash. No one has any idea of what will happen in 12 months. You have a better chance of predicting the weather next year. Some years ago a study was done on how accurate all the economic forcasters were. All were wrong and the most accurate was found to be the UK treasury. One thing everyone is agreed on is that growth will be faster outside the EU than inside the EU, who have issued a report that over 90% of growth in the next 50 years will be outside the EU, and is the main driving force for the EU to establish trade agreements with other countries. We are outside the EU and can customise trade agreements that suit our economy not be biased towards Germany and France. There is a massive imbalance in the economies of Germany and say Greece, Spain, and Italy which is expected to go into recession. (Assuming the predictions are right!) This imbalance will be driven further by the Brussels beaurocrats who have no concern with the huge unemployment in some countries and simply expect people to go and find jobs in another country. Leaving the EU gives us a great opportunity to restructure our economy, with us having record employment levels and the lowest unemployment for over 40 years. We need to invest in being more self-sufficient in food production, medicines, and IT. We have massive advantages over other countries with our large economy, 60 million people, our global position, our own currency, the English language, and the natural talents of our nations for inventiveness, ingenuity, sense of fair play, and be generally hard working, whilst able to excel in the arts and sport. You won't get very far on here with that sort of positivity
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:14:10 GMT
GDP should be understood as a measure of annual income (not wealth). All consumer spending plus investment, plus government spending, exports minus imports over a year. It’s a useful but imperfect measure of overall welfare in a society.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:18:33 GMT
Most of these assessments/reports ‘assume’ on trend growth of about 2%. Imagine the UK’s total GDP was 1,000 GBP.
On trend growth with no change to existing trade arrangements would give GDP of (approx.) 1,346 after 15 years (2035).
(You can use an online compound interest calculator to look at how compounding works.)
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:24:19 GMT
There are many impact assessments of Brexit on GDP most making a forecast in the impact after 15 years. We could pick 4% as a reasonable figure for this examlple. If we accept this 4% estimate UK GDP in 2035 will be 4% smaller than the figure we used in the previous post for normal on-trend growth that 1345.90 now becomes 1294.10 Note that is still higher than today by about 30% (but smaller than expected).
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:35:59 GMT
I’ll if we take that on trend 2035 GBP estimate including the impact of reduced EU trade the new ANNUAL growth rate is 1.73%. Which is 0.27% lower than it otherwise would have been on an annualized basis.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:45:49 GMT
The most recent report under discussion about the potential for a UK-US trade agreement suggests that it could increase GDP ANNUAL growth by 0.16% per annum. Assuming no other change (and we can’t do that but for this example we will) our 2% on trend growth becomes 2.16%. This would mean our 1000 GDP grows to 1411 after 15 years.
Notice the affect of compounding a small amount (the 0.16% annual increase in growth) has on the total difference
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 20:53:37 GMT
However, we know we can’t have the same access to EU markets while having a US-UK trade agreement.
So we have to take the impact of the annualized loss of access to EU markets (we estimated this as minus 0.27% per annum) plus the potential upside of 0.16% per annum from US-UK and include the on trend 2%. This would give growth of 1.89% (2%+0.16%-0.27%=1.89%). This, after 15 years of compounding, turns our 1000 GDP into 1324.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 21:02:50 GMT
If we take any of these numbers at face value it would suggest that in 2035 under a 'remain/Brexit never happened' our GDP would be 35% larger than it is today in 2035 while assuming a 'reasonable' hit from Brexit plus an uplift from US-UK FTA might mean the economy would only be 32% larger than it is today (after those 15 years).
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 21:07:23 GMT
DISCLAIMER: My sums might be wrong above. I'm doing this on the fly. DISCLAIMER2: I may have missed some important factor about the US-UK proposals. I only skim read it.
What I'm trying to illustrate is how you can pick different numbers to suit different narratives. An annual change in GDP growth can't be compared to a a cumulative effect after 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 4, 2020 0:02:53 GMT
I wish we had the internet in 1973 and could see all the benefits predicted of joining the EEC (Common Market). A lot of trade growth did occur but I don't think anyone then thought we would finish up with a -£66 billion pa trade deficit with the future EU. researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851What people like Benn, Powell, and Peter Shore predicted was that Europe would gradually increase their sovereignty over the UK and they were proved right.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 6, 2020 20:45:28 GMT
Nissan to invest £400m and build the new Qashqai in Sunderland
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Mar 6, 2020 21:57:01 GMT
Nissan to invest £400m and build the new Qashqai in Sunderland Good news but simply continuing with previously-announced investment.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 7, 2020 10:05:44 GMT
DISCLAIMER: My sums might be wrong above. I'm doing this on the fly. DISCLAIMER2: I may have missed some important factor about the US-UK proposals. I only skim read it. What I'm trying to illustrate is how you can pick different numbers to suit different narratives. An annual change in GDP growth can't be compared to a a cumulative effect after 15 years. I’ve had a quick read of the document and I’d got it wrong. The cumulative effect is, indeed, estimated to only be 0.16% after 15 years. Surprising to me. Usual question marks about the technique and assumptions used still apply.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 7, 2020 14:27:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 7, 2020 14:32:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 7, 2020 14:35:07 GMT
It has a down side though the 69million this tax makes was given to charity which they will now miss out in. They are already calling for the government to pay it instead.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 7, 2020 19:41:03 GMT
It has a down side though the 69million this tax makes was given to charity which they will now miss out in. They are already calling for the government to pay it instead. I was not aware of this, but better not to tax poor women for one of life's essentials. I am rather concerned about charities these days. It seems many organisations call themselves charities rather dubiously, many pay executives massive salaries, and many seem to have a huge budget to pay for advertising, newsletters, postage, etc.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Mar 7, 2020 19:46:58 GMT
It has a down side though the 69million this tax makes was given to charity which they will now miss out in. They are already calling for the government to pay it instead. I was not aware of this, but better not to tax poor women for one of life's essentials. I am rather concerned about charities these days. It seems many organisations call themselves charities rather dubiously, many pay executives massive salaries, and many seem to have a huge budget to pay for advertising, newsletters, postage, etc. I tend to agree mate far too many, it does imho make it difficult to donate with confidence. I also dont like how successive governments have used charities to cover up for their failings. But I do agree period poverty really is a disgrace but I'm not sure 7p will make much difference to that 🤷♂️ when you take the lack of the charitable donations into account it's a double whammy.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2020 8:24:26 GMT
It comes with lots more red tape and additional cost will be passed onto consumers. What was wrong with agreeing the safety standards of aircrafts with our closest neighbours? WTO is a set of agreed rules governing trade. Why is that fine but agreeing the safety standards of air travel not?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2020 8:25:31 GMT
It has a down side though the 69million this tax makes was given to charity which they will now miss out in. They are already calling for the government to pay it instead. I was not aware of this, but better not to tax poor women for one of life's essentials. I am rather concerned about charities these days. It seems many organisations call themselves charities rather dubiously, many pay executives massive salaries, and many seem to have a huge budget to pay for advertising, newsletters, postage, etc. Like private schools that create continuity of the elite who rule this country Whereas Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and Mind (3of the charities that benefit from tampon tax) are hardly as you describe above. Charities are generally good things
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2020 8:33:08 GMT
DISCLAIMER: My sums might be wrong above. I'm doing this on the fly. DISCLAIMER2: I may have missed some important factor about the US-UK proposals. I only skim read it. What I'm trying to illustrate is how you can pick different numbers to suit different narratives. An annual change in GDP growth can't be compared to a a cumulative effect after 15 years. I’ve had a quick read of the document and I’d got it wrong. The cumulative effect is, indeed, estimated to only be 0.16% after 15 years. Surprising to me. Usual question marks about the technique and assumptions used still apply. There’s no doubt leaving the EU will be bad for our economy. Signing trade deals with far more powerful nations (US, China, EU) will also reduce our sovereignty after Brexit. Leavers seem to think we can dictate terms and don’t seem to understand the multitude of issues over and above trade that are part of all major trade deals. No nation is sovereign if they wish to interact with other nations.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 8, 2020 9:06:16 GMT
I was not aware of this, but better not to tax poor women for one of life's essentials. I am rather concerned about charities these days. It seems many organisations call themselves charities rather dubiously, many pay executives massive salaries, and many seem to have a huge budget to pay for advertising, newsletters, postage, etc. Like private schools that create continuity of the elite who rule this country Whereas Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and Mind (3of the charities that benefit from tampon tax) are hardly as you describe above. Charities are generally good things Totally agree; we are better with charities than without. My point was I am concerned at the abuse of charitable status, like the schools example you quote, and the gravy train some are on running them.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 8, 2020 9:13:43 GMT
I’ve had a quick read of the document and I’d got it wrong. The cumulative effect is, indeed, estimated to only be 0.16% after 15 years. Surprising to me. Usual question marks about the technique and assumptions used still apply. There’s no doubt leaving the EU will be bad for our economy. Signing trade deals with far more powerful nations (US, China, EU) will also reduce our sovereignty after Brexit. Leavers seem to think we can dictate terms and don’t seem to understand the multitude of issues over and above trade that are part of all major trade deals. No nation is sovereign if they wish to interact with other nations. I don't agree. We will be better off outside the EU in the long run, if indeed there is a long run for the EU now we are out. No doubt there will be a rough adjustment period to start with and people like you will harp on that we never should have left, but in the long term it will be to our benefit that we will be free of the restraints and taxes. Our trade with the EEC grew rapidly when we joined the common market, but in recent years the trend has been the opposite direction. Now we will start to grow our trade far more rapidly with the rest of the world. But most importantly we will have our own legislation, regulated by our own courts. Very soon most of the world's top ten economies will be outside the EU. We will grow our economy faster. We will become more self sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 8, 2020 9:34:13 GMT
The Government should still commit to funding the charities for the length of this parliament after the VAT is abolished.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2020 13:08:05 GMT
By the way, we could have charged 0% VAT on sanitary products whilst in the EU. Our tory government for the last 10 years chose to charge 5% though.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Mar 8, 2020 13:13:24 GMT
|
|