If we vote for Brexit what happens

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cells wrote: »

Some estimates put the UK as Europes biggest economy in 30 years time.

They do indeed.

Largely as a result of our pro-immigration policies preventing the sort of economic decline Germany was forecast to suffer as a result of falling birthrates.

However Merkel's genius in using the refugee crisis to attract a million+ young people may well help Germany avoid that fate... Now she just has to keep up similarly high levels of migration for another decade or two.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

They do indeed.

Largely as a result of our pro-immigration policies preventing the sort of economic decline Germany was forecast to suffer as a result of falling birthrates.

However Merkel's genius in using the refugee crisis to attract a million+ young people may well help Germany avoid that fate... Now she just has to keep up similarly high levels of migration for another decade or two.

you need to understand the difference between GDP and per capita GDP
as neither of us believes in the lump of labour theory, we can agree that as the population grows (in most situations) one expects the GDP to grow too.
This, of course, doesn't necessarily make the existing people of the country any richer and it certainly doesn't make their quality of life any better.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

you need to understand the difference between GDP and per capita GDP
as neither of us believes in the lump of labour theory, we can agree that as the population grows (in most situations) one expects the GDP to grow too.
This, of course, doesn't necessarily make the existing people of the country any richer and it certainly doesn't make their quality of life any better.

GDP per capita should grow with more people as we can utilise infrastructure at a higher capacity and overheads of some fixed costs fall per capita.

Like I asked you before, economically and socially what would be better for the UK. For the population to expand to 75 million or for the population to contract to 55 million?

mayonnaise

cells wrote: »

Like I asked you before, economically and socially what would be better for the UK. For the population to expand to 75 million or for the population to contract to 55 million?

I heard on here that a contracting population would improve our 'quality of life' as it would bring cheaper housing for all, higher wages and on top of that solve traffic congestion.
Utter madness, I know, but the idea is quite popular with the Angry Little England Supremacists on this forum.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

GDP per capita should grow with more people as we can utilise infrastructure at a higher capacity and overheads of some fixed costs fall per capita.

Like I asked you before, economically and socially what would be better for the UK. For the population to expand to 75 million or for the population to contract to 55 million?

GDP whether gross or per capita is a poor measure of the quality of life :
the number and size of rooms I enjoy, the levels of pollution, the ease of travel, the levels of congestion, all massively affect my quality of life

what you call better utilisation of infrastructure, means is grossly overcrowded housing to real people or heavily polluted cities or increased journey times or overcrowded transport etc.

then of course there is the matter of of the UK not being self sufficient in energy food and other essentials.
currently the large trade deficit is funded by foreigners buying up UK industry and foreign debt


unfortunately there is no economic theory that says for every extra 1m foreign immigrant, the rest of the world decides to buy more aero engines or other UK products.

and in answer to your question about a population of 55million v 75 million
clearly the people would have a massively better quality of life with a population of 55 million

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

Alternative Fuer Deutschland (AdF) received between 12 and 24% of the vote. That's on par with the vote share of our own extreme-right party.

You're obviously ignorant of the burgeoning collection of bona fide fascists the people of mainland Europe are now voting for.
A vote for Brexit distances ourselves from mainland Europe`s growing penchant for far right politics.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

GDP whether gross or per capita is a poor measure of the quality of life :
the number and size of rooms I enjoy, the levels of pollution, the ease of travel, the levels of congestion, all massively affect my quality of life

what you call better utilisation of infrastructure, means is grossly overcrowded housing to real people or heavily polluted cities or increased journey times or overcrowded transport etc.

then of course there is the matter of of the UK not being self sufficient in energy food and other essentials.
currently the large trade deficit is funded by foreigners buying up UK industry and foreign debt


unfortunately there is no economic theory that says for every extra 1m foreign immigrant, the rest of the world decides to buy more aero engines or other UK products.

and in answer to your question about a population of 55million v 75 million
clearly the people would have a massively better quality of life with a population of 55 million

hows it working out for the people of Detroit?

Tromking

gfplux wrote: »

Sorry misread your post. What mainland country do you refer to.

Perm one country on mainland Europe from about ten!

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

hows it working out for the people of Detroit?

I've no idea of the relevenace of Detroit but
Is your argument that all countries with population less than 55 million are poor and destined to become more poor?

why not address the real issues of her dis-economies of scale and the differences between GDP and quality of life for the people living in the country?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea of the relevenace of Detroit but
Is your argument that all countries with population less than 55 million are poor and destined to become more poor?

why not address the real issues of her dis-economies of scale and the differences between GDP and quality of life for the people living in the country?

We have an example of a shrinking population and that is London from 1951-1981

Was that a glorous period of no traffic and wealth and wellbeing with plnty of high paying jobs and rainbows and happiness? or was the talk in the 70s and 80s how to manage Londons decline?