SnailyBoy Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Doesn't it state an immediate effect following a leave vote? It does indeed, 'hit confidence and raise uncertainty', which we had and have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 There should be! If they're all allowed to be "universally wrong" then there should be some possible scenario where we're projected to be better off outside the EU as was promised by the leave campaign. Sigh, do we have to do this? I'll keep to the main point, not the narrative. There are. The usual place to head is Patrick Minford and Roger Bootle. There are others. Like all commentators they have interesting things to say but I trust their macro predictions as much as any other. Yeah, of course you are! Yes I am, and consistently too. Go through my posts with a fine toothcomb if you care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) IMF. Wrong How coincidental, do you think, that the IMF forecasts of 18 June 2016 correlate pretty closely with those of the leaked DeXEU report of January 2018? The resulting uncertainty would hit spending and financial markets, it said, estimating that even under a relatively benign scenario in which the UK negotiated a trade status similar to that between Norway and the EU, output would fall by 1.5% by 2019, compared with where it would be under continued EU membership. It modelled a less favourable outlook, in which GDP would fall more steeply. “In the adverse scenario of long negotiations and a default to the trade rules of the World Trade Organisation, GDP plunges by 5.5% by 2019,” it said. For reference, the 2018 DeXEU report still puts the corresponding figure at 2% for the Norway-like outcome, 5% for FTA, but 8% for WTO rules, by horizon 2032. Sure, the UK bought itself an 11-year reprieve relative to the June 2016 forecasts at horizon 2020. But that's still just like saying it's better to have one black eye, than two black eyes and a few missing teeth: what's the point and value of getting the black eye in the first place? Over to Leaver's projections. Preferably not Matthew Elliott's: Responding to the latest IMF remarks, Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave said: “The IMF has chosen to ignore the positive benefits of leaving the EU and instead focused only on the supposed negatives. If we vote leave, we can create 300,000 jobs by doing trade deals with fast growing economies across the globe. We can stop sending the £350m we pay Brussels every week. That is why it is safer to vote leave.”which have all been comprehensively debunked since, until December 2021 at the earliest. OECD. Wrong The current estimate of £200m per week for the Brexit delta certainly puts at least some veracity to the OECD claim pre-referendum. Edited January 31, 2018 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 How coincidental, do you think, that the IMF forecasts of 18 June 2016 correlate pretty closely with those of the leaked DeXEU report of January 2018? Well spotted though I did address this point briefly. I was being a but snarky so you may have missed it. Oh look, there's the LSE economists cropping up yet again Jim Hacker went to the LSE and ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Well spotted though I did address this point briefly. I was being a but snarky so you may have missed it.Did you? My bad if you did, as I can't recall reading any answer to the points raised in the mid-section of my post 6158, namely: it's perfectly true that nobody knows the actual macro outcome, since that has yet to happen (as does Brexit). but please explain why that makes professional economists and the like 'idiots', when they engage in modelling likely outcomes based on historical and factual precedents; and does this make every single managing type, in corporate and public structure regardless, an 'idiot' when they forecast for budgeting and resource allocation? there isn't much change in the figures between the government's leaked 2018 briefing paper and the pre-referendum 2016 Treasury estimates; there is still as much uncertainty about actual outcomes; but the estimates are now better delimited with the benefit of 20 months' worth of post-referendum economic data, full clarity about the EU27 guidelines (phase 1 and phase 2), full certainty about legislative texts concerned (EU and beyond, e.g. WTO), and the record of 'negotiations' by the UK government; lastly on the topic of what the 'incomplete' report allegedly doesn't cover (the mythical D&CFTA equal to or better than the Norway option), that's simply never going to happen because EU's own red lines...which might be exactly the reason why the report doesn't cover it I was being a but snarky so you may have missed it.and reciprocally...but then, I asked first. So you go first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 There's nothing of value that I can add L00b. Historic macro modelling is as reliable as a crystal ball. It's as self explanatory as you already know it is, but happen to see it from a different personal standpoint. You may as well ask me what I think about post Brexit chlorinated chicken where I have no opinion beyond healthy, ethical and cheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Sigh, do we have to do this? I'll keep to the main point, not the narrative. Of course you will There are. The usual place to head is Patrick Minford and Roger Bootle. There are others. Whoosh! Lol. Yes I am, and consistently too. Go through my posts with a fine toothcomb if you care. You are consistent, though not for the reasons you state, on that we agree. ---------- Post added 01-02-2018 at 16:34 ---------- More info from the DxEU:- Brexit impact analysis shows that the cost to the British economy of cutting migration from the EU would be significantly greater than the benefits brought by a US trade deal. https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-leaked-brexit-analysis-shows-how-cutting-eu-immigration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 What is consistent is the inaccuracy of almost every forecast. Don't rely on prognosticators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 What is consistent is the inaccuracy of almost every forecast. Don't rely on prognosticators. and hope for the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 and hope for the best? I doubt that mere 'hoping' has any effect, either! What happens, happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts