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
      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
        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
          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
            1·
            1 year ago

            Lol, no they’re not. Productivity is not GDP…

            And the 4% is over 15 years and is a result of loss of comparative advantage.

            If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

            • G4Z
              1·
              1 year ago

              So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?

              If you have to compound an effect over 15 years to get 4%, the effect is fuck all.

              Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn’t it?

              Let me ask you, what do you think it’s cost the UK per year in billion pounds?

              • emerty
                1·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn’t it?

                But that’s what the forecast says. 4% of productivity lost over the long term of 15 years due to loss of comparative advantage

                https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis

                But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.

                The loss of comparative advantage is replaced, I’d argue, with competitive advantage which has a much stronger effect. The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI

                GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow…

                The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect

                I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities’ innovations.

                • G4Z
                  01·
                  1 year ago

                  long-run productivity is GDP mate. Unless you have something which actually says otherwise? Even assuming it is GDP per capita, so what?

                  But the forecast is for the cost, no benefit is included.

                  Yes it is included, there isn’t any.

                  The UK is no longer bound by the anti science regulations on genetic engineering and the new overly restrictive proposed regulations on AI

                  Uh-hu… back to maybe and could then…

                  GDP per capita is a ratio of GDP / population, so if you do more with fewer people, by using automation, robots and AI, your GDP per capita will grow…

                  Mate, I work in IT, have done for 25 years. There is no EU regulation preventing productivity increasing thanks to automation, what a load of nonsense.

                  Also, we don’t have fewer people do we, we have more people.

                  The 4% figure over 15 years is a difference of 0.29% to 0.27% productivity growth. Government policy has at least that 0.02% effect

                  Show me a source from somebody credible that says that exactly.

                  I have a credible source says it’s costing 100bn a year.

                  Here’s another one

                  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-damage-uk-economy-covid-b2308178.html

                  Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4 per cent smaller than if the country had stayed in the EU, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog confirmed on Sunday.

                  Pretty clear that if you ask me, from a national newspaper.

                  I predict a Starmer govt will be able to introduce policy that will offset the productivity loss just by investing in renewable energy, let alone any research universities’ innovations.

                  I predict it could all have been done in the EU, and research and development would have been easier and cheaper to collaborate on to boot.

      • emerty
        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, 🤡