1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion - The new thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Feek, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. Entai

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Feb 28, 2004

    Posts: 73,012


    Have you adjusted those figures for inflation over those periods of time though?

    Add in the fact that different economies have different rates of inflation at different points in that timescale?

    GDP raw figures like you are trying to compare will change drastically if you do those sums.

    GDP growth rates relative to each other will not.
     
  2. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 10,160

    Heard on Sky this morning, by the end of this year the Brexit fiasco will have cost the UK more than we have paid into the EU since we joined 40+ years ago.
     
  3. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 3,188

    When will some on explain the benefits that make this all worthwhile ?

    Currently Brexit is worse than socialism for all the extra cost, delay, bureaucracy and pointless inefficiency it creates. What’s next rationing ?
     
  4. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,366

    Location: Essex

    Eh? I always edit my posts in order to correct any spelling mistakes or to make things clearer for the reader, if need be. Is that a problem? :confused:

    Since you're now appearing to struggle with the English language, i'll clarify even further.

    How is it possible that you do not understand the difference between what YOU just said:

    And what I have repeatedly said:

    I've picked you up and corrected you on this at least eight times so far. The only possible explanation is that you don't understand what you're saying.

    For crying out loud man, just how desperate are you? I pointed out that no one had ever said what you said in bullet point one, then removed it as it seemed redundant so say so, given the second bullet point.

    Here's some advice for you; if you're scrambling around and complaining that someone has corrected their own spelling mistakes, grammar or clarified something in their response to you, rather than following the argument itself; then you're making it abundantly clear to everyone else that you've dug yourself a deep a hole and are now scratching to get out.

    It's not a charade, it's literally what you're supposed to do! :confused:

    It's how you compare these sorts of things. What is wrong with you?

    We're comparing our rate of growth pre-2016 to our rate of growth post-2016; and seeing how that compares with other economy's rate of growth pre-2016, along with their rate of growth post-2016.

    There's no other way of doing that. For the love of God I don't know how you're struggling with this.

    What the flying ****? Of course it wouldn't! :confused:

    How many frigging times? WE ARE COMPARING GDP GROWTH RATE PERCENTAGES, NOT ABSOLUTE GDP. Why can't you grasp this?

    You don't understand the arguments at all; every single post this is the same; you completely ignore what's written and go right back to randomly comparing absolute GDP instead of GDP growth rates.

    The only possible thing that I can think of, is that you think that we are talking about the UK's GDP growing by 1% over the size of the Eurozone's GDP every year when we are not; we are talking about the UK growing over itself, by 1 point more than the Eurozone grew over itself over the same time period.

    But even then it doesn't help your argument because you're not comparing pre 2016 with post 2016, so this is just insane. You're just tying yourself up on knots that aren't even remotely relevant to anything discussed so far. In fact, you're not even really arguing with me, you're just arguing that data doesn't equal the data.

    You're arguing that A != A even though A = A.

    Again, this can only be because your grasp of these concepts is so frightfully poor.

    You're either trolling me, or I've dramatically overestimated your base level intelligence. I'm sorry, but consider your intelligence questioned.

    As I keep trying to tell you, this isn't about Brexit. You just do not understand the fundamental concepts involved enough, to interpret the data at all.

    Pick an economics paper, any one one will do; read it very carefully back to back, and then come back and re-read my last lengthy post; this one:

    https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33382644/

    Then consider that you've admitted to us that you have no formal qualifications in this field, and that all of the economists in the paper you've just read, as well as everyone here, including those of us who do have some form of experience with this kind of stuff; are all telling you that you're doing this wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  5. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,366

    Location: Essex

    I think for my own sanity, I'm going to have to put you on ignore, which is something I truly do not do lightly.

    I'm not doing so because I think you're particularly rude or necessarily dishonest; but because you've displayed such an extreme lack of understanding regarding things that you're so confidently proclaiming; even though the entire world of mathematics and economics disagrees with you.

    It's going to make me mentally ill to keep trying to correct you.

    Hopefully whoever decides to bravely take up the mantle going forward will be wise enough to just point you back to my post, over and over again, rather than engage in these absurdities where numbers mean whatever you want them to mean and reality seems to subjective:

    https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33382644/

    Like I said, take your magical fantasy analysis to the Royal Economics Society at UCL; or hell, even just the economics department at my University; because if everything you say is correct, and if me and the world's economists are wrong, then you will win a Nobel Prize for overturning several fields of study built upon hundreds of years worth of advancements, as well as thousands of years worth of logic, philosophy, and epistemology.

    Good luck to you... But in the mean time, consider that there's another alternative possibility to the above; maybe you're just wrong.

    Occam's Razor:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  6. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,802

    Location: UK

    GordyR, give up, it doesn't matter a jot if you state WE ARE COMPARING GDP GROWTH RATE PERCENTAGES, NOT ABSOLUTE GDP as when it comes down to it, the GDP figures show the lie (or mistake) to your growth rates. The two are interconnected with growth rate over time leading to higher GDP

    An example:

    Year 2000 and Country X has GDP = 100
    If we take an exact 5% annual growth rate then after 10 years in 2010 you have GDP = 150
    Your stating the growth rate without using the before and after GDP figures
    Here's a growth rate calculator. You'll notice it has Past/Present and Present/Future boxes which you can enter the GDP figures https://miniwebtool.com/percent-growth-rate-calculator/?present_value=100&future_value=150&num=10

    or you can just simply look at the GDP for Country X in 2001 & 2015 as these figures are published and use that like I did ;)


    or better still here's the figures for UK v EZ between 2001 and 2015 (we can't use earlier than year 2000 Eurozone figures as they are not reliable given it didn't exist)

    EZ 2001 (GDP 6.592T) to 2015 (GDP 11.672T) Growth Rate 5.50% https://miniwebtool.com/percent-gro...resent_value=6.592&future_value=11.672&num=14
    UK 2001 (GDP 1.657) to 2015 (GDP 2.732) Growth Rate 4.63% https://miniwebtool.com/percent-gro...present_value=1.657&future_value=2.732&num=14

    So even doing the maths your preferred way shows the Eurozone out performed UK growth rate by a 0.87% average over 14 years prior to Brexit which doesn't help your case as both this growth rate and my looking at GDP figures disprove your fictional UK outgrowing EZ pre-2016
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  7. jpaul

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 10,909

    My earlier terminology was wrong - Heathrows role as a gateway to eu, as opposed to an internal uk hub; how much of that volume will we loose as a result of brexit ?
    thus, currently over-estimating future need.
    CDG or Germany would want to have imports delivered direct to them, as opposed to internal rail/road transfer , with additional customs intervention.

    https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/co/pdf/co-17-01-04-inf-revenue-q-n-as-on-real-estate.pdf (albeit integrity of kpmg has been questioned)
    I don't know what the relative value of air imports versus sea/road

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Mr C

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 8, 2006

    Posts: 800

    You can't just take two separate GDP figures from different years because those figures are NOT comparable due to exchange rates and inflation. If these are adjusted for inflation and converted to US dollars for comparison, unless they both use the SAME unit of currency (for example a historical currency point, of which the current figures would then need to be further adjusted for inflation back to that historical point) Because if you say the EU is worth 11.672T USD in 2015 but 6.592T in USD in 2001 the value of the USD in 2001 is not comparable to the USD in 2015, neither is the exchange rate of the Euro to the USD between these two time periods as GDP is done in a national currency then converted (usually to USD).

    To show this look here:

    (using your numbers of 2001 - 2015)
    Showing in a comparable currency at a fixed point in time (2010 USD)

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?end=2015&locations=GB-EU&start=2001&view=chart

    https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD&country=GBR,EUU

    The uk in 2001 is now: $ 2.163 T and the EU is now $ 15.127 T
    Using the same method of you above and the data for the UK/EU in a corrected fashion of currency we get in 2015:

    2.735 T and 18.007 T

    Using YOUR calculator (i don't need one but i will use it anyway):

    For the UK
    Annual Percent Growth Rate
    1.8889%

    For the EU
    Annual Percent Growth Rate
    1.3599%

    1.8889 - 1.3599 = 0.529%

    That number is far closer to GordyR's average, it will be impossible to get the same number due to using adjusted figures to USD rather than actual growth rates as growth rates will be done in their respective currencies and adjustments for currency conversions will be unnecessary.

    Post edit:

    To further elaborate on GordyR's position we then take the following 2016-2018 and compare (in the fixed currency analysis)

    https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD&country=GBR,EUU

    UK in 2016: 2.788
    EU in 2016: 18.374

    UK in 2018: 2.880
    EU in 2018: 19.231

    2016 to 2018 is 2 years:

    UK:
    Annual Percent Growth Rate
    1.8293%

    EU:
    Annual Percent Growth Rate
    2.3321%

    1.8293 - 2.3321 = -0.5028

    Before Referendum

    UK outgrew the EU by 0.529%

    After Referendum

    EU outgrew the UK by 0.503%

    A total swing in comparative growth of 1.0058% in favour of the EU: Mathematical proof that from 2001 to 2015 the UK beat the EU and post 2016 the EU beats the UK, what caused that switch-over again........

    This is using YOUR methodology (once corrected for inflation and currency)

    If we want to compare these raw numbers (per capita is better than pure GDP numbers and again in a fixed currency point):

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicato...8&locations=GB-EU-DE-FR&start=2010&view=chart

    On this graph you can clearly see post 2016, the EU, France and Germany are growing at a faster rate than the UK, so much so that France overtook the UK.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  9. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,802

    Location: UK

    says only you?

    I think you'll find GDP figures are adjusted with a base US$ otherwise why the hell would every conceivable economic source use them ;)

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_GDP_is_better_for_an_economic_analysis
     
  10. Mr C

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 8, 2006

    Posts: 800

    Even your own link (did you just seriously google that?) says that using fixed currency measures are better for historical uses:

    Three people there literally have told you (or the person asking the question) that using GDP figures as a whole is a poor way to compare economies, using them in non adjusted exchange rates over time periods is an EVEN WORSE way to compare economies.

    That is why, from the very beginning of this discussion, GordyR and EVERYONE else uses GDP GROWTH RATES not inflation adjusted/currency converted comparative rates.
     
  11. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,802

    Location: UK

    Only you and Gordy are sticking to Growth rates, other remainers om here I suspect just nodding in agreement and not bothering to check your figures as your overdoing the maths required.

    2/3 weeks ago we had Gordy stating UK growth rate over Eurozone was somewhere between 1% and 2%, a few days ago it was ~1.5%, then yesterday he revised that down to iirc 0.78% and now your giving us 0.529% and stating that's close enough. You literally can't seem to come up with a figure which tells us one thing......

    "garbage in, garbage out" ;)
     
  12. squerble

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 13, 2009

    Posts: 4,264

    Location: UK

    Laughably, this is also your downfall.
     
  13. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 35,440

    Location: Co Durham

    He has always said from the start that it ignores the crash period in which case ALL the evidence shows he is correct. You keep flailing around trying to prove A=B when A=A all along. everybody else on here can see this except you.

    And whether you include the crash or exclude the crash there is one undeniable fact - post 2016 the UK is performing 1% less than it was prior to 2016. Feel free to put any point forward you want as to what event in 2016 caused this but you cant try and change the facts that this happened.
     
  14. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 6,482

    You can't imagine them being more intelligent and so it cannot be the case.

    You know what that thinking's symptomatic of, don't you?

    :D:D:D

    Just in case anyone needed reminding of what the statistics show...

    "Leave voters displayed significantly lower levels of numeracy." - source

    "In terms of psychology... Brexiteers were found to be considerably more closed-minded." - source

    "Male Leave voters appeared to be more susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect than Remain voters" - source

    Ask yourself - in what way would the posts of a relatively innumerate, closed-minded sufferer of a bad case of Dunning-Kruger look any different to what we're all seeing?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  15. sigma

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 17,969

    If something goes from +0.5 to -0.5, what is the difference?

    The revised 0.78 was due to your request to either exclude or include the 2008 crisis wasn't it? Calling that out doesn't do you any favours.

    I don't think it's just remainers who are in agreement about growth rates are they? @dowie seems to have left this thread in favour of the virus one but I'm sure even he agrees with Gordy to some extent?
     
  16. Kermit

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 27, 2002

    Posts: 2,802

    Location: UK

    I give up, as already mentioned lots of times, this thread is poisonous to anyone not on the remain side. Might as well rename name it the "remainer brexit whine" thread.
     
  17. sigma

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 17,969

    I guess you finally figured out that the difference between +0.5 and -0.5 is 1 then? And that 1.5 is somewhere between 1 and 2?
     
  18. sigma

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 17,969

    How did you get to 150?

    100
    105 Year 1
    110.25 Year 2
    115.7625 Year 3
    121.550625 Year 4
    127.6281563 Year 5
    134.0095641 Year 6
    140.7100423 Year 7
    147.7455444 Year 8
    155.1328216 Year 9
    162.8894627 Year 10

    ?

    e: Oh you said year 1 is 100. So you meant 155? Just wondering.
     
  19. jpaul

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 10,909

    I'm not sure he was, if you look at the data he used,
    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-gross-domestic-product (Data are in current U.S. dollars. Dollar figures for GDP are converted from domestic currencies using single year official exchange rates.)
    compared to yours
    https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.KD&country=GBR,EUU - gdb constant 2010

    isn't the difference just the choice of 2010, versus, todays dollar value (for conversion of previous years)
    ..... so the annual growth rate, calculated from the two data sources, should be the same. ?

    saying the above, I don't understand how the inflation element is incorporated in the worldbank or macrotrend data
     
  20. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 4,351

    I've not read every word of your trolling but this statement needs highlighting for how laughable it is, how you think an absolute change is interconnected with a relative change is beyond me, do you really think a change from 10 to 11 is the same thing as a change from 100,000,000 to 100,000,001? They're both an absolute change of 1 after all.
    Your inability to understand basic maths has nothing to do with Brexit though, you may as well be saying people only disagree that a meter is a meter because they believe in fairies.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020