Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee

Snapshot of Eurozone inflation falls to 5.5% in sharp contrast to UK. Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee.

  • G4Z@feddit.uk
    01·
    1 year ago

    undefined> Lol, you are like most remain voters I encounter, you like the idea of the EU, but don’t actually know anything about it. Of the 3 current federations, which one would you like the EU to become? Russia? China? USA?

    Mate one of the first posts you made on this contained 2 factually incorrect statements and none of your links have backed up your claims.

    If me pointing this out makes me a typical remain voter, well I suppose that shows just how much more informed we are than you typically Brexit blind types.

    66b wasted plus 66b opportunity cost plus 66b to redo the work that was meant to have been done. That’s 198b…

    Oh well in that case, £200 bn lost, plus 200bn to re do all that work when we do eventually join and then another eleventy billion for things I made up just like you.

    And no, the UK hasn’t spent 200b on brexit. You are demonstrating stunning levels of economic illiteracy now.

    OBR says otherwise.

    You’ve already demonstrated you’re willing to make incorrect statements (charitable) and unsupported claims, bit rich to be saying anything about others literacy.

    When I present you evidence of EU incompetence and corruption, you claim this as evidence of competence and purity.

    I never said that though.

    I said

    ’ I think those are both fantastic examples of accountability’ which is an entirely different statment

    Do you always make up these straw men to knock down,do you think putting words in your debate opponents mouth is a god way to argue? You are simply incapable of responding to the actual point that’s been stated or something?

    I’m not a nationalist,

    You voted for fucking Brexit mate, and you’re defending it. If you aren’t a nationalist, you’re in bed getting fleas off them.

    Honestly, you ‘lexiters’ are more deluded than the most red faced sun reading UKIPers.

      • G4Z@feddit.uk
        11·
        1 year ago

        Sure, the OBR says 4% GDP loss per year.

        3.1 trillion per year GDP, let’s make it 5% just to make it easy

        150 billion per year, x 2+ years, it’s well over 200bn.

        Bloomberg also agrees

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output

        So, you going to accept this fact then? or is it going to be fingers in ears?

        Your Google fu sucks as does your critical thinking skills

        What is this supposed to prove?

        I’m saying, they have 2 of the largest companies in the world you’ve pointed to a company with 34 employees and 2 farms (1 in construction) In farm in Germany has 422 employees (source linkedin for both) so it’s 10 times as big a company as the one you linked.

        Yes, I did vote for it. Very happy with it. Guess it just sucks to be you

        Haha, yeah I can tell, you won’t accept reality, you can’t accept you’ve made a huge mistake, you can’t handle the truth!

        Like I said, you’re all remarkably gullible, I mean similar.

        • emerty@feddit.uk
          11·
          1 year ago

          Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

          LOL, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT 😂😂😂😂

          • G4Z@feddit.uk
            11·
            1 year ago

            Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

            Mate, firstly.

            Calm down.

            Secondly, you’re wrong, it is GDP not GDP per capita and it is at least 200bn.

            These are facts, accept the facts.

              • G4Z@feddit.uk
                11·
                1 year ago

                No it’s GDP, you are simply wrong, confidently wrong I will grant you, but wrong.

                Tell me genius, what’s the measure for long term productivity growth the OBR uses here?

                https://obr.uk/box/productivity-growth-long-term/

                Oh right, look at that, it’s GDP.

                I mean, are you saying Bloomberg is also wrong?

                Again, resorting to insults just shows up your immaturity and the fact that you’ve lost this debate.

                • emerty@feddit.uk
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Fucking hell,

                  GDP is one thing

                  Gross domestic product is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by a country or countries.

                  GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards

                  What Is GDP Per Capita? Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is an economic metric that breaks down a country’s economic output per person. Economists use GDP per capita to determine how prosperous countries are based on their economic growth GDP per capita is calculated by dividing the GDP of a nation by its population. Countries with the higher GDP per capita tend to be those that are industrial, developed countries

                  Once you’ve worked that out, tell me what the loss of productivity that the OBR is forecasting is down to.

                  Hint, it’s comparative advantage. When you’ve learned what that is, let me know.

                  • G4Z@feddit.uk
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah I know what the difference is, I’ve just shown you that the OBR is referring to GDP when they walk about ‘long term productivity growth’ and nothing you have posted there contradicts that.

                    Seems to be a pattern here, you say something incorrect, I point it out, and you throw insults.

                • emerty@feddit.uk
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  GDP growth was similar in the twentieth century and the nineteenth, averaging 2.1 per cent in both cases. Higher productivity growth in the twentieth century therefore is associated with weaker growth of total hours worked, due to a combination of weaker employment growth and falling average hours

                  You don’t understand your own link, 🤡