Is There an Economic Case for Leaving the EU?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

One difficulty is that all every single economist in the world would agree that GDP is a poor measure of 'real' income or real goods and service, nevertheless group think dictates that they will ALWAYS use the GDP in practice.

So e.g. if we can enjoy a certain level of prosperity which requires us to say commute for 30 minutes a day: if circumstances change so that to maintain the same level we have to commute of say 2 hours a day, the economist will see no change GDP (I ignore the actual cost in fuel etc commuting for now). However in reality we are much poorer but because it isn't measured as part of GDP the change will be ignored and deemed 'non-economic'.

So my objection to the massive increase in the population isn't anything to do with any objection to people (like one of my parents and many relatives) who were born abroad but the impact they have on
- London (and the SE) house prices that have serious economic consequences for ordinary people but do not reflect in the 'economics ' of increase in population.
- increase in overcrowding and subsequent delays : again that do not count as 'economic' costs.
as well as other issues.

The economic debate won't be just about GDP though. I wasn't talking about GDP but the cost & ease of trade, you're talking about a happiness/ wellbeing/ resources measurement, there's equality measures and plenty more besides.

This is a thread about the economic case for leaving the EU not the affect on GDP.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm amazed you view the cost of imports as a half hearted issue but so beit.

It's not an issue to use as a reason to leave the EU. Costs of trade will increase will increase with EU countries and there's no reason to believe that business costs with the rest of the world would change at all.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

The economic debate won't be just about GDP though. I wasn't talking about GDP but the cost & ease of trade, you're talking about a happiness/ wellbeing/ resources measurement, there's equality measures and plenty more besides.

This is a thread about the economic case for leaving the EU not the affect on GDP.



It's not an issue to use as a reason to leave the EU. Costs of trade will increase will increase with EU countries and there's no reason to believe that business costs with the rest of the world would change at all.

to my mind the level of tariffs is an economic issue

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand the relationship between the UK buying food on the world market, without EU tariffs, and Scottish referendum

I'm sure you don't but then why single out just one of the myriad of things you don't for special attention.

You were responding to:

So, yes, Japan & China can do business with the EU but it's more complex and costly than EU country to country trade.

It would seem pretty clear to most people that there is similarity between:
> It is easier for Scotland to trade with the rest of the union than it would be if independent.
> It is easier for Britain to trade with the rest of the European Union than it would be if independent

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

I'm sure you don't but then why single out just one of the myriad of things you don't for special attention.

You were responding to:


It would seem pretty clear to most people that there is similarity between:
> It is easier for Scotland to trade with the rest of the union than it would be if independent.
> It is easier for Britain to trade with the rest of the European Union than it would be if independent

no I was responding to a post by you that said

And exactly the same arguments were made by Nationalists during the Scottish referendum as you are making here but you're not keen to draw that comparison I wonder if that's because you rubbished those arguments and claimed that it was really because they hated the people they shared the union with... doesn't exactly make your point I suppose.

As you raised issues of motivation (i.e. 'hated' etc) that are irrelevant here and so my reply.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Not sure what FUD stands for

Your inability to type three letters into a search engine and read the first result doesn't help your credibility; neither does your ignorance about a widely used term.

michaels wrote: »

but continuing your off topic non-economic arguement

I've literally never seen debating technique as poor as to bring up a point, then claim someone is 'off topic' when they respond to it :rotfl:

michaels wrote: »

Not sure if opt-outs prevent UK red lines being crossed either, easy enough to say okl UK you can opt out of working time directive or whatever but then deny access to UK goods on the grounds that they have not been produced by staff working in a manner that corresponds to EU safety rules.

Firstly, your lack of understanding of how the EU works is clear (the situation goes directly against the principle of free movement). Secondly, it would be trivial for them to require us to follow the rules to trade with them if weren't in the EU. You've actually given an example of a benefit of EU membership, but are sufficiently blinkered not to realise.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

no I was responding to a post by you that said

Oh be serious. You now wish to claim that you were responding to a post by me, that I hadn't yet written when you quoted someone else? I can believe that you find the forum too technically complex to be correct but I don't by that you have the gift of precognition.

It leads me to wonder why I'm wasting time arguing with someone who can't remember what they were saying, in response to whom, 3 hours is ago.

CLAPTON wrote: »

As you raised issues of motivation (i.e. 'hated' etc) that are irrelevant here and so my reply.

I'll try and put it succinctly: You dismissed arguments by Scottish nationalists that are the same as those you use. You try and dismiss the argument that membership of Europe is beneficial for trade by equating it to the argument that the Euro was beneficial for trade.

Thus you are willing to try and use equivocation to make your case when it is no more appropriate then circumstances under which you would criticise others for doing so.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Oh be serious. You now wish to claim that you were responding to a post by me, that I hadn't yet written when you quoted someone else? I can believe that you find the forum too technically complex to be correct but I don't by that you have the gift of precognition.

It leads me to wonder why I'm wasting time arguing with someone who can't remember what they were saying, in response to whom, 3 hours is ago.



I'll try and put it succinctly: You dismissed arguments by Scottish nationalists that are the same as those you use. You try and dismiss the argument that membership of Europe is beneficial for trade by equating it to the argument that the Euro was beneficial for trade.

Thus you are willing to try and use equivocation to make your case when it is no more appropriate then circumstances under which you would criticise others for doing so.

I do not see a direct parallel between Scotland leaving the UK and the Uk leaving EU.
Certainly there are some parallels but significant differences that make the comparison largely irrelevant.

kabayiri

zagubov wrote: »

I'm not totally comfortable with the concept of the lump of labour fallacy (I don't disapprove of it, I'm not sure I fully understand it).

I understand the idea that somebody being in work generates work for other people., and that bringing in an industry or business employing 100 people directly generates about another say 50 jobs

...

Okay, so this is unfortunately going to be technical, but here goes...

Take a EU immigrant criminal overlord

- we will need extra police to track down his despicable activities (more jobs)

- he is more likely to rough people up => more medics etc

- if he is caught he will probably make some human rights claim; this is terribly important business for all those human rights lawyers trying to make ends meet

- after being caught, it would probably make sense for him to suddenly lose any command of English. This would mean the need for translators.

Thinking about it, that's one heck of a "lump of labour"

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

What will you eat if imports are made much more expensive?

Where else is the EU going to export the produce to?

Germany is in the throes of a 4 day railway strike. Cracks are appearing. Merkel all of a sudden doesn't appear so well placed to dictate economic policy to others.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Does that not assume that every immigrant creates at least one new job as well as the one they are doing?

No.

I really do hope you think about this a bit though.....

Lets try another example;

When women first started to enter the workforce by their millions, many people predicted it would lead to mass unemployment of men.

They predicted that women would be stealing men's jobs and driving down men's wages.

Of course this didn't happen.....

Why do you think that is?

zagubov wrote: »

I'm not totally comfortable with the concept of the lump of labour fallacy (I don't disapprove of it, I'm not sure I fully understand it).

I understand the idea that somebody being in work generates work for other people., and that bringing in an industry or business employing 100 people directly generates about another say 50 jobs

The simplest way to explain it is that a society of 100 million people will need roughly twice the number of doctors, lawyers, supermarket shelf stackers, taxi drivers, toilet cleaners, etc, as a society of 50 million people.

Or to put it another way....

-In the recession of the early 80's there were 3.2 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the early 90's there were 3 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the late 00's there were 2.7 million people unemployed.

If immigration causes unemployment, and given that millions of immigrants have been added to the population since the 80's, why were fewer people unemployed in the last recession (which was also the deepest recession) than in the two previous ones?

I fully appreciate the benefits of migration to seek work, but I'm puzzled how having outsiders relocating to do work while unproductive (albeit reluctantly so) locals receive benefits doesn't cause needless inflation.

Inflation is at near record lows....

Economists all note that close to 0% unemployment is neither desirable nor possible.

Apart from anything else, it's highly inflationary, it's also terrible for productivity, as you're having to hire people that have no desire to work and in many cases have little ability to perform in the jobs at hand.

The desired level of unemployment from an economic perspective, so called "full employment", is somewhere around 4% to 5% or so in the UK.

Unemployment of less than this level will damage productivity and cause inflation.

As a society then, we're better off in aggregate with around 1.6m unemployed than we are with fewer unemployed.

And with unemployment now below 2m and falling fast, we're getting dangerously close to full employment.

Time to open the floodgates....