Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. " If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct" I think you probably know the answer to that Leroy. You'll probably have plenty tell you it's a conspiracy  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct I think you probably know the answer to that Leroy. You'll probably have plenty tell you it's a conspiracy "It just surprising that things are being compared like this. I'm sure they can find plenty of problems to highlight without resorting to such tactics | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM " Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct" Thisnis exactly correct german services would drop like a lead balloon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too." How is his reasoning motivated? What particular point did you feel he made up or didn't describe or back up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too." Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct Thisnis exactly correct german services would drop like a lead balloon." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too. How is his reasoning motivated? What particular point did you feel he made up or didn't describe or back up? " His political position tells you the conclusion he wants to demonstrate. The data will be made to fit the conclusion. Just like anytime Rees-Mogg opens his mouth. Again, companies wanting to make money and organisations with no dog in the fight all come to a different conclusion, as do companies actually trading and manufacturing. Again,to be clear, you are also trying to sell a position that leaving the EU has basically had no discernible negative effect on the UK economy but joining CPTPP will be a huge positive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You'll also see that around 9 minutes in he comes back to a slide. Where he talks about services output. I mentioned that we follow oecd guidelines whereas other g7 member do not. He hilights that because of this apparently NHS gdp output fell 20%. He highlights the absurdity of this. But it is a breakdown of why I told you our comparability is difficult with the other nations who refuse to change their measures. We know why they won't. If comparing such things, using the same method seems a basic requirement. I understand this is not the case. You say we know why they won't do it. I'm assuming it's because it will not show their respective countries as strong as they claim and possibly show that despite recent events the UK is actually not as bad as they like to portray. Am I being too cynical or is my assumption broadly correct I think you probably know the answer to that Leroy. You'll probably have plenty tell you it's a conspiracy
It just surprising that things are being compared like this. I'm sure they can find plenty of problems to highlight without resorting to such tactics"Why is this "tactics" and not using a consistent measure to allow comparison over time? Are the financial companies that use this data too stupid to know the real difference in economic performance between countries? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too. How is his reasoning motivated? What particular point did you feel he made up or didn't describe or back up? His political position tells you the conclusion he wants to demonstrate. The data will be made to fit the conclusion. Just like anytime Rees-Mogg opens his mouth. Again, companies wanting to make money and organisations with no dog in the fight all come to a different conclusion, as do companies actually trading and manufacturing. Again,to be clear, you are also trying to sell a position that leaving the EU has basically had no discernible negative effect on the UK economy but joining CPTPP will be a huge positive." The data is from the ons and de statis etc. He hasn't made it fit any conclusion. He is merely showing the data and the non existent effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This will be worth the ban. But the uni of Cambridge economic professor Graham Gudgin, explaining the flaw of models I have highlighted in that when you remove USA from g7 models etc. Some countries in g7 have faired quite a bit worse than the UK. Since the referendum gdp wise. So the 4/5% gdp hit from brexit doesn't reconcile. Unless thay thought the UK was going to outgrow every g7 economy for the next 5 years when they made the prediction. (ignoring the fiscal stimulus) https://youtu.be/wpiRmUdsBZM Graham Gudgin of "Briefings for Britain" and " Conservative Home"? A completely neutral and data-driven organisation? You used this as "evidence" before. A lot is based on what you take as the reference date. When you pick one where other countries were performing particularly well and the UK was performing particularly very Poorly, then you tell the story that you want to. Equally, expecting significant growth in trade with an already overwhelming large trading partner is not sensible. There just isn't much more to buy or sell. However, you don't burn your huge internal market (current customers) to chase small but growing markets (new customers) a long way away. This gentleman's reasoning is motivated. You can see this from the organisations he is involved in. The financial companies using the more widely available data are perfectly aware of flaws in the data. However, despite Liz Truss' assertions the financial industry is neither left wing or woke or liberal. They are there to make money. They will not use crap data, they will comission their own if necessary, but their activity aligns with the the conventional view. As an aside Gudgen was to be one of the advisors that the same failed Prime Minister was going to appoint to "reassess" how the success of trade deals are measured There assessment is not that there is a marginal difference not that the effect of Brexit to date and in the future has been or will be negligible as asserted by you and by the speaker. "Economic gravity" on its own will tell you that is unlikely, let alone the fact that if leaving a huge trade zone next door to you has no impact then joining one thousands of miles away will have even less of one. Nevertheless, good to look at all interpretations of the information as long as you are aware of the limitations of the non-conventional argument too. How is his reasoning motivated? What particular point did you feel he made up or didn't describe or back up? His political position tells you the conclusion he wants to demonstrate. The data will be made to fit the conclusion. Just like anytime Rees-Mogg opens his mouth. Again, companies wanting to make money and organisations with no dog in the fight all come to a different conclusion, as do companies actually trading and manufacturing. Again,to be clear, you are also trying to sell a position that leaving the EU has basically had no discernible negative effect on the UK economy but joining CPTPP will be a huge positive. The data is from the ons and de statis etc. He hasn't made it fit any conclusion. He is merely showing the data and the non existent effect." Yet the companies that use economic data to make money do not agree with his conclusions. If there really is no economic effect of Brexit, then there can be no economic effect of any less integrated free trade deal. The principle and reality are there, regardless of the what he is "showing" with his interpretation of the data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect?" Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't fancy watching it and trying to take apart any of his argument then?" Watched it. Not going to spend time listing every point of contention when another Professor of Economics has done the job. I have given you that reference, but there are many others who disagree with Gudgin. He knows more about the topic than me and more about the topic than you. Graham Gudgin is wholly biased. That does not mean that all of his points are invalid, they are just clearly spun. Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations and those that need to make money based on the outcomes rather than his. You can do a you wish. Why would you believe you that this guy is completely right and everyone else is completely wrong? Also if you genuinely believe that Brexit has had zero negative effect on the UK whilst CPTPP will generate a huge benefit then you are indulging in a highly partisan narrative. The analysis agrees with you therefore it is completely correct and everyone else is completely wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you want to start getting closer to truth you have to be prepared to examine opposing arguments in good faith. We've done that ourselves and found our own opinions changed when looking at things from another perspective. That said, we've also sometimes ended up thinking opposing arguments are stupid as well. "Quite. So, as I have said, there are some interesting points made by Gudgin and also some incorrect ones pointed out in the reference that I provided. I'm willing to accept that. Is the OP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't fancy watching it and trying to take apart any of his argument then?" Graham Gudgin used to write for Brexit Central website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy." Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't fancy watching it and trying to take apart any of his argument then? Watched it. Not going to spend time listing every point of contention when another Professor of Economics has done the job. I have given you that reference, but there are many others who disagree with Gudgin. He knows more about the topic than me and more about the topic than you. Graham Gudgin is wholly biased. That does not mean that all of his points are invalid, they are just clearly spun. Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations and those that need to make money based on the outcomes rather than his. You can do a you wish. Why would you believe you that this guy is completely right and everyone else is completely wrong? Also if you genuinely believe that Brexit has had zero negative effect on the UK whilst CPTPP will generate a huge benefit then you are indulging in a highly partisan narrative. The analysis agrees with you therefore it is completely correct and everyone else is completely wrong." Have you watched the video? Because this not about him being right...you would knkw this. It'd about him highlighting ons data vs de statis etc and trends | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Didn't fancy watching it and trying to take apart any of his argument then? Graham Gudgin used to write for Brexit Central website. " What a surprise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents." It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes "Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves. Easy couldn't be bothered watching it. Hes undone your point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point."Have you watched the talking horse video? What does he say at 15.14, and what colour is his hat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point."When you get chance read this https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
"Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
Have you watched the talking horse video? What does he say at 15.14, and what colour is his hat? "I really really really touched a nerve with you when you said you'd read something and I asked you to quote what as on a certain page and you couldn't. Because you didn't read it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself?" I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
Have you watched the talking horse video? What does he say at 15.14, and what colour is his hat?
I really really really touched a nerve with you when you said you'd read something and I asked you to quote what as on a certain page and you couldn't. Because you didn't read it."I watched it through to the end. The panel discussion also unpicks and questions many of the assertions and points made. Are you able to accept that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?"You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"" No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video." All we need to know about you really isnt it. I won't actually watch a video and try and retinue the findings. I'll post an ad.hominem about the person that made it. State a biased website is unbiased thay I like. And think to myself what an intelligent reply." I watched a video. To the end, where the validity of the data and findings are questioned by the panel. I am not going to address every point made in that 1hr 30mins. So whatever point that you think you have made, you have not. I gave you the reference to someone (a Professor of Economics) who has taken to do exactly what you requested, which you apparently do not wish to read. Your attempts to argue are failing. I watched the video. I have delegated mine to the panel in that video and a Professor of Economics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not." So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"" No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video." All we need to know about you really isnt it. I won't actually watch a video and try and retinue the findings. I'll post an ad.hominem about the person that made it. State a biased website is unbiased thay I like. And think to myself what an intelligent reply. I watched a video. To the end, where the validity of the data and findings are questioned by the panel. I am not going to address every point made in that 1hr 30mins. So whatever point that you think you have made, you have not. I gave you the reference to someone (a Professor of Economics) who has taken to do exactly what you requested, which you apparently do not wish to read. Your attempts to argue are failing. I watched the video. I have delegated mine to the panel in that video and a Professor of Economics." Which particular point..let's have the discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor "I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor
I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof"What does he say on chapter 3, second sentence, 3rd word ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor
I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof
What does he say on chapter 3, second sentence, 3rd word ? "If we take estimating effect on gdp as the first chapter after intro. "Just" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor
I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof
What does he say on chapter 3, second sentence, 3rd word ?
If we take estimating effect on gdp as the first chapter after intro.
"Just""Wrong, it says ‘It’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor
I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof
What does he say on chapter 3, second sentence, 3rd word ?
If we take estimating effect on gdp as the first chapter after intro.
"Just"
Wrong, it says ‘It’ "Feel free to post the fulls entente so I can see you're bot being g facetious and I know your method of thinking. Now where are the numerical data sets in this article? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This threads been up for 4 days and not 1 attempt to watch or dismantle anything brought up in it Pretty poor ladies and gents. It isn’t very credible, very biased and vague, 3,800 views and 66 likes, the talking horse video had over 200k views and 45k likes
Yup. Absolutely proof that ignorance is bliss. You said it yourselves.
Easy couldn't be bothered watching it.
Hes undone your point.
When you get chance read this
https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2023/02/17/is-it-really-true-that-brexit-has-had-no-harmful-effects/
Where in here am I meant to see any data sorry?
You obviously haven’t read it , pretty poor
I have. Feel free tonoffer the figures provided as proof
What does he say on chapter 3, second sentence, 3rd word ?
If we take estimating effect on gdp as the first chapter after intro.
"Just"
Wrong, it says ‘It’
Feel free to post the fulls entente so I can see you're bot being g facetious and I know your method of thinking.
Now where are the numerical data sets in this article?"It is all there in the link, keep looking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Awww. Still the little child. " You have the lost the argument when you resort to personal insults, such a shame | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart?" I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be." You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be." OK. Shame you couldn't mention a single things fro. The " take down" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here?" Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. OK. Shame you couldn't mention a single things fro. The " take down" " Read the article and you can list them yourself. You could also list what the panel said at the end of the video. It would be no different to what you are asking me to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do?" The Sussex blog is a well known remainer blog. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. OK. Shame you couldn't mention a single things fro. The " take down" Read the article and you can list them yourself. You could also list what the panel said at the end of the video. It would be no different to what you are asking me to do. " Sp you can't then. Because you didn't watch it. Cheers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do?" You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will admit, I'm lazy. Is there any bits specifically I should jump to. Is it simply is a question of valuing services like doctors based on salary versus operations, or is there a lot more to it ?" The entire analysis by Graham. Where easy is going wrong is assuming that the audience and John portes take down any of graham's points they don't. He jsut assume the q and a after has that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? The Sussex blog is a well known remainer blog." If you say so. I don't "know" that to be the case. At worse this makes him no more or less reliable than Professor Gudgin. He still makes the case against Professor Gudgin's position about Brexit having no effect. That is what you asked for, and that is what you a have got. What's the problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me." I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. OK. Shame you couldn't mention a single things fro. The " take down" Read the article and you can list them yourself. You could also list what the panel said at the end of the video. It would be no different to what you are asking me to do. Sp you can't then. Because you didn't watch it. Cheers." That sounds a little childish, don't you think? Cheers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree?" I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will admit, I'm lazy. Is there any bits specifically I should jump to. Is it simply is a question of valuing services like doctors based on salary versus operations, or is there a lot more to it ? The entire analysis by Graham. Where easy is going wrong is assuming that the audience and John portes take down any of graham's points they don't. He jsut assume the q and a after has that" No. Only you used the phrase "take down". I said that the "validity of the data and findings are questioned by the panel". Something that you do not wish to do. Which is fine. Both they and Professor Winters have made the arguments against some of Professor Gudgin's conclusions. Some of his points may be valid and worth thinking further about. They are far more experienced and qualified than you or me. Once again, the majority of neutral organisations and once which make profit based on the economic assessments do not agree with Professor Gudgin. You do not appear to disagree. I don't think that I know better, but you do. That's not for me to explain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all." It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear?" Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand?" It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly." Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 " Article not found but is it the '0.08%' may be over-inflated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Article not found but is it the '0.08%' may be over-inflated?" yeah. Over edited. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Article not found but is it the '0.08%' may be over-inflated?yeah. Over edited. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359.html" Yeah seen it. That's gonna have the remainers foaming at the mouth. Can't wait | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Article not found but is it the '0.08%' may be over-inflated?yeah. Over edited. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359.html Yeah seen it. That's gonna have the remainers foaming at the mouth. Can't wait "Why would people who voted against brexit be "foaming at the mouth" over news that the brexit benefits are pathetic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 " Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. " "My biased source is correct" "Your biased source isn't " Even though bathing said actually refuted graham's claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?" Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?" i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. " You really don't understand do you? Being bored is not an excuse for not thinking. One set of views and data is made available. These views and the data are refuted. It doesn't matter who is biased. Is the original set of data accurately and correctly refuted or not? If it is not correctly refuted then the original data stands. If it is correctly refuted then the original data was incorrect. It could be something in-between. So, the only point is, were the original views and data correctly refuted by Winters or not, or is it a bit of both? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. " I'm happy to believe the very complicated models created by Government and non-Government bodies unless there is a clear reason to question them. Generally I will be inclined to believe neutral organisations or those that use neutral data for their livelihoods as more believable. The OP is the one who doesn't like the consensus opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. "My biased source is correct" "Your biased source isn't " Even though bathing said actually refuted graham's claims." Again, for clarity, Professor Winters refuted Professor Gudgin's claims. The majority of non-partisan organisations and even the Treasury and Bank of England, disagree with Gudgin. You want someone to refute Gudgin's opinion. I have provide a well argued answer provided by a well qualified and highly regarded economist. Far more credible than you or me. It does not seem to have been established that Winters in any way biased other than what you have claimed. You just stayed that something was "well known" that clearly is not. Is there anything about Professor Winters' rebuttal that you take issue with, biased or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. " We have learned easy doesmt read. Nor watch videos on things he discusses. So it's quite pointless. The final 2 paragraphs of your article are exactly as I have always said in these discussions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant..." Her budget was brilliant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. I'm happy to believe the very complicated models created by Government and non-Government bodies unless there is a clear reason to question them. Generally I will be inclined to believe neutral organisations or those that use neutral data for their livelihoods as more believable. The OP is the one who doesn't like the consensus opinion." Consensus to you = correct? Eesh. People like you would still have us believe the earth was flat then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. "My biased source is correct" "Your biased source isn't " Even though bathing said actually refuted graham's claims. Again, for clarity, Professor Winters refuted Professor Gudgin's claims. The majority of non-partisan organisations and even the Treasury and Bank of England, disagree with Gudgin. You want someone to refute Gudgin's opinion. I have provide a well argued answer provided by a well qualified and highly regarded economist. Far more credible than you or me. It does not seem to have been established that Winters in any way biased other than what you have claimed. You just stayed that something was "well known" that clearly is not. Is there anything about Professor Winters' rebuttal that you take issue with, biased or not?" What figures refuted the claim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now please take any part of that video and try to dissect it with a modicum of knowledge as to why he's incorrect? Anyone with modicum of knowledge would come to the conclusion that the ending of a forty year, highly integrated, trade and free movement relationship would have a measurable difference on the UK economy. Graham Gudgin is the chief economic adviser for Policy Exchange, which is Conservative and Brexit supporting organisation. So, let's not pretend that his interpretation of any data is neutral. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html No, I'm not going to step through an hour of video. However you can start by looking up: The UK Trade Policy Observatory "Is it really true that Brexit has had no harmful effects?" By Professor L. Alan Winters Regardless I will be more inclined to put more weight to neutral organisations who have no dog in the fight or those using the data to make money, and therefore needing accuracy. Erm the man that runs Sussex blog you think is unbiased? I've hear it all now. Still don't feel like addressing any point yourself? I didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics, but he certainly does not belong to as many overtly partisan organisations. The point, that I will make again, is that Gudgin's position is biased and should be viewed as such when deciding what is worth taking on board and what is not. So which is it "Again, I am more inclined to take the summaries of neutral organisations" "Didn't say that the University of Sussex Professor of Economics was more or less biased than the University of Cambridge visiting Professor of Economics" Is he biased or not? I'll let you sit down and think. I saw jd portes amd others and Sophie etc. What particular point do you feel they took apart? I didn't say he was or was not biased. However, he has made the argument against Gudgin, biased or not, so I don't need to. Less biased than Gudgin based on the organisations that he belongs to, it seems. I said my thoughts in general are to be inclined to neutral organisations and those needing to make money. They do not endorse Gudgin's view. He is an outlier and from your opinion on the ONS assessment of the effects of Brexit, then outliers such as that of the World Bank, should be excluded. No. Can't be bothered to argue on details with you. It is incredibly tedious. Everyone can watch to the end and draw their own conclusions. You have provided a link to another viewpoint that has been presented. I disagree with a lot of it. Some of it is worth thinking about and what the reasons may be. You're not making any sense. You prefer to be inclined to take your thoughts from non biased organisations but your whole argument against this sites a biased professor? Am I the only one being thick round here? Nobody has indicated that Professor L. Alan Winters is or is not biased except for the OP, without any evidence as far as I can see. Why do you think that he is? He is certainly not a member of any overtly partisan organisations as Professor Gudgin is. What is apparent is that he strongly disagrees with Professor Gudgin's position and has explained why in the article. The other evidence is that the position by almost every other neutral and financial organisation. I say "almost" because there may be some that agree that Brexit has had no economic effect on the UK but am unaware of them. Perhaps you or the OP could indicate which do? You are citing who Professor Gudgen has worked for. Have you bothered to check who Professor Winters has worked for? These things swing both ways. I'm not here to argue either sides case but your argument just doesn't add up to me. I have. There seem to be a wide range of national and international organisations. None of them appear particularly partisan but that is a cursory observation. Interestingly, there is no Wiki page for Gudgin so harder to assess. Although what is available is extremely partisan with respect to Brexit. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree. I'm not sure why you think I don't. As I've stated here already, I'm curious about the person you choose to use as your counter argument, that's all. It doesn't matter who he is. He makes a direct counter-argument with far more knowledge and experience. Biased or not, the requested argument is made. That's why I chose him. His article answers the question. Is that not clear? Of course it matters who it is. You argue that Professor Gudgin is biased. Do you understand? It doesn't matter to answering the points made. They are still answered. A biased source is perfectly able to address them and it is possible to assess if the responses are credible or not. Are his counter-arguments valid or not? If they are, it doesn't matter who write them, does it? Gudging has made some valid points despite being biased. Are you saying that Professor Winters is biased, or not? I don't think that he is particularly. Honestly, I'm bored of this now. I'll stand by this.... If you say someone is biased and use someone else who is biased in your counter-argument. That person matters. End of. "My biased source is correct" "Your biased source isn't " Even though bathing said actually refuted graham's claims. Again, for clarity, Professor Winters refuted Professor Gudgin's claims. The majority of non-partisan organisations and even the Treasury and Bank of England, disagree with Gudgin. You want someone to refute Gudgin's opinion. I have provide a well argued answer provided by a well qualified and highly regarded economist. Far more credible than you or me. It does not seem to have been established that Winters in any way biased other than what you have claimed. You just stayed that something was "well known" that clearly is not. Is there anything about Professor Winters' rebuttal that you take issue with, biased or not?"
This is why you bore me. Round and round and round.
You need to let go of the need to be correct all the time.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant... Her budget was brilliant. " Lol. I think you snookered yourself there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant... Her budget was brilliant. Lol. I think you snookered yourself there. " Have you seen the uk economy? The markets reacted to spending increases over the obr estimate...the obr was wrong by 30bn. The bofe sold the bonds it bought temporarily for a profit. What do you think they got wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant... Her budget was brilliant. Lol. I think you snookered yourself there. Have you seen the uk economy? The markets reacted to spending increases over the obr estimate...the obr was wrong by 30bn. The bofe sold the bonds it bought temporarily for a profit. What do you think they got wrong? " Sometimes I may misunderstand the point. To be clear. You're saying it was a good budget, because after she left office the UK was able to recover some of the damage done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not "There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. " So it didn't lose the UK money, but caused more inequality? I'm just trying to understand your argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. So it didn't lose the UK money, but caused more inequality? I'm just trying to understand your argument. " Nope the new budget caused more inequality according to the IMF. "Don't do liz truss budget it will cause more unequality" " your revised budget has caused more inequality than liz truss budget" Imf ladies and gents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. So it didn't lose the UK money, but caused more inequality? I'm just trying to understand your argument. Nope the new budget caused more inequality according to the IMF. "Don't do liz truss budget it will cause more unequality" " your revised budget has caused more inequality than liz truss budget" Imf ladies and gents." I'll be honest all this inequality being created doesn't sound great to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. We have learned easy doesmt read. Nor watch videos on things he discusses. So it's quite pointless. The final 2 paragraphs of your article are exactly as I have always said in these discussions." Well, I watched the video and read the article that I referred you to. You just saying otherwise, just as you make other claims by assertion, doesn't make it so. I didn't write the article. It is not mine. I referred you to it. As I stated, however biased his position, some of Professor Gudgin's points are quite reasonable. Others are not. That's what the article also states. You don't seem to be claiming that Gudgin is not writing from a position of strong pro-Brexit bias. In fact, he cannot acknowledge any negative impact at all. Again, that does not mean that all of his analysis is to be dismissed. Some of is interesting and worth considering. If you don't think that any of Professor Winters' points are incorrect, then I guess they are also reasonable and worth considering. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade? Are you saying that the report is "dynamic, something, something" inaccurate? Give us another figure. To be fair, Liz Truss wanted to hire Professor Gudgin to create different ("better"?) trade calculations for her. Of course, he was one of the economists who thought that her budget would be brilliant... Her budget was brilliant. Lol. I think you snookered yourself there. Have you seen the uk economy? The markets reacted to spending increases over the obr estimate...the obr was wrong by 30bn. The bofe sold the bonds it bought temporarily for a profit. What do you think they got wrong? " The OBR was told not to make any analysis of the "fiscal event". That was part of the problem. The lefty, woke financial blob trust the OBR more than Truss, Kwateng and, it would appear, the economists (including Professor Gudgin) who wrote a letter supporting her. It doesn't matter what you think about the OBR. You are insignificant and powerless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ? "It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video. Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same. Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. " You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*handgrenade* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-asia-trade-deal-cptpp-b2313359 Not really. This is just the independent take. What makes you think this is a hand grenade?i thought it may get you and easy debating about models again. We have learned easy doesmt read. Nor watch videos on things he discusses. So it's quite pointless. The final 2 paragraphs of your article are exactly as I have always said in these discussions. Well, I watched the video and read the article that I referred you to. You just saying otherwise, just as you make other claims by assertion, doesn't make it so. I didn't write the article. It is not mine. I referred you to it. As I stated, however biased his position, some of Professor Gudgin's points are quite reasonable. Others are not. That's what the article also states. You don't seem to be claiming that Gudgin is not writing from a position of strong pro-Brexit bias. In fact, he cannot acknowledge any negative impact at all. Again, that does not mean that all of his analysis is to be dismissed. Some of is interesting and worth considering. If you don't think that any of Professor Winters' points are incorrect, then I guess they are also reasonable and worth considering." Still no point sof discussion..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ?
It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video.
Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same.
Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion..."This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9" Not at all. I think you just don't understand what you read. The imf said it would create more growth. Liz truss wanted to fiscally expa d because she expected higher tax receipts from lower tax rates. She was correct. She wasn't borrowing the money "going against bofe" in terms Of inflation control | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ?
It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video.
Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same.
Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion...
This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect.
"Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect. He underlines that in the panel discussion. I guess you hear what you want to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9 Not at all. I think you just don't understand what you read. The imf said it would create more growth. Liz truss wanted to fiscally expa d because she expected higher tax receipts from lower tax rates. She was correct. She wasn't borrowing the money "going against bofe" in terms Of inflation control" Remarkable that you just ignore the actual words that they wrote about the overall policy and just focus on the bit that suits you. Perhaps not remarkable at all... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect. " So the general gist is that the pro brexit video creator says that brexit is less shit than expected? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ?
It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video.
Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same.
Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion...
This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect.
Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect.
He underlines that in the panel discussion.
I guess you hear what you want to."Which articular part? Care to point out the time and I will revisit the clip? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9 Not at all. I think you just don't understand what you read. The imf said it would create more growth. Liz truss wanted to fiscally expa d because she expected higher tax receipts from lower tax rates. She was correct. She wasn't borrowing the money "going against bofe" in terms Of inflation control Remarkable that you just ignore the actual words that they wrote about the overall policy and just focus on the bit that suits you. Perhaps not remarkable at all..." This is your quote "While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years." Which bit cuts against bofe policy then from the Truss budget that the Imf are on about?" Feel free to enlighten | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect. So the general gist is that the pro brexit video creator says that brexit is less shit than expected?" He doesn't really give his opinion lf the total I pact. Just highlights 4/5% is a nonsense stat not backed up data | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect. So the general gist is that the pro brexit video creator says that brexit is less shit than expected? He doesn't really give his opinion lf the total I pact. Just highlights 4/5% is a nonsense stat not backed up data" Interesting. I will watch it if I have time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ?
It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video.
Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same.
Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion...
This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect.
Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect.
He underlines that in the panel discussion.
I guess you hear what you want to.
Which articular part? Care to point out the time and I will revisit the clip?"Nope. Really can't be bothered to provide you with a time stamp. That is not "proof" that I haven't listened. It means that I can't be bothered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9 Not at all. I think you just don't understand what you read. The imf said it would create more growth. Liz truss wanted to fiscally expa d because she expected higher tax receipts from lower tax rates. She was correct. She wasn't borrowing the money "going against bofe" in terms Of inflation control Remarkable that you just ignore the actual words that they wrote about the overall policy and just focus on the bit that suits you. Perhaps not remarkable at all... This is your quote "While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years." Which bit cuts against bofe policy then from the Truss budget that the Imf are on about?" Feel free to enlighten" I don't need to. Tell the IMF that they're wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She left the office upon furore. What lart of the budget was wrong? The imf said it would lead to greater growth for the uk. The imf said it would lead tk highe rinequality. It then said the revised budget would lead to inequality. The bofe sold the bonds it bought for profit. The obr got its forecast wrong by 30 bn...you know that apparent black hole.. You are being a little selective, I think" From Fortune 'The IMF to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng: You’re doing it all wrong “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation."' 'While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years. “Fiscal policy should not work at cross-purpose with monetary authorities’ efforts to bring down inflation,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s economic counselor, not naming the UK specifically. “Doing so will only prolong inflation and could cause serious financial instability, as recent events illustrated.”' I guess you read what you want to and then stop. The BoE sold the bonds at a profit after the entire policy was reversed. After the opposite to what caused them to have to buy the bonds in the first place. The OBR and most other economic agencies almost always get their forecasts wrong to some extent because... it's complicated. However, they apply what historical data and economic models that they have and make some sort of a prediction which is then corrected. They are not usually that far off. However, it made no difference to the reaction of the markets. They don't just hope for the best as Truss and Kwarteng were going to. Unless you have some figures for the expected outcome. That's what spooked everyone... There is an FT article on the reasons for the OBR being wrong: https://www.ft.com/content/22e1f703-802b-44f9-a1ce-cc3ca3a51de9 Not at all. I think you just don't understand what you read. The imf said it would create more growth. Liz truss wanted to fiscally expa d because she expected higher tax receipts from lower tax rates. She was correct. She wasn't borrowing the money "going against bofe" in terms Of inflation control Remarkable that you just ignore the actual words that they wrote about the overall policy and just focus on the bit that suits you. Perhaps not remarkable at all... This is your quote "While the IMF agreed with Truss that her economic program will boost growth in the short term, it also cuts against the Bank of England’s effort to contain inflation, which is near its highest level in 40 years." Which bit cuts against bofe policy then from the Truss budget that the Imf are on about?" Feel free to enlighten I don't need to. Tell the IMF that they're wrong."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I watched a video of a talking horse on YouTube, not sure if it was real or not
There’s also a taking goat riding on the back of a pig. I love how posting links to YouTube won’t get you a ban because it’s considered an authoritative source.
I’ve no idea what this post is about - can someone explain ? It’s about economics? Brexit ?
It's about a video of an economist who thinks that Brexit had zero effect on the UK economy and a demand to argue against the video.
Other than the fact that the majority of organisations and companies do not agree with that position, there is a panel at the endi of the video which queries many of the points and the data and also an article that does the same.
Then there is a cul-de-sac about bias which was stated as an aside but appears to be a good diversion...
This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect.
Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect.
He underlines that in the panel discussion.
I guess you hear what you want to.
Which articular part? Care to point out the time and I will revisit the clip?
Nope. Really can't be bothered to provide you with a time stamp.
That is not "proof" that I haven't listened. It means that I can't be bothered."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect." "Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect. He underlines that in the panel discussion. I guess you hear what you want to." "Which particular part? Care to point out the time and I will revisit the clip?" "Nope. Really can't be bothered to provide you with a time stamp. That is not "proof" that I haven't listened. It means that I can't be bothered." So you are bothered enough to assert that you are right and the other guy is wrong, but not bothered enough to tell us where we can find the evidence for ourselves. To me, that's "proof" that you like to argue with people, and you don't want anyone else to see that you're wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This just proves you didn't watch the video. He's arguing about the 4/5% not thay brexit had no effect. Oh, he really is saying that Brexit has had no effect. He underlines that in the panel discussion. I guess you hear what you want to. Which particular part? Care to point out the time and I will revisit the clip? Nope. Really can't be bothered to provide you with a time stamp. That is not "proof" that I haven't listened. It means that I can't be bothered. So you are bothered enough to assert that you are right and the other guy is wrong, but not bothered enough to tell us where we can find the evidence for ourselves. To me, that's "proof" that you like to argue with people, and you don't want anyone else to see that you're wrong." He posted the video. All of the words and pictures are there. Why do I need to be more specific than the OP was in claiming this proved the flaw in the economic models? Watch the video as he requested and find out what he claimed both in the video and in the paper that he was basing it on. What is adequate "proof" for you od anything is your own business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
