Brexiters should be 'Ashamed of the harm to come"

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Brexit already having negative effect, say top business leaders

“Business in this country is already feeling the pain of the economic upheaval of leaving the EU,” said Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos Mori. “There is no sign that this is likely to ease this year.”

https://www.ft.com

58% of CEO's said Brexit already having a negative effect on their business.

Just 11% said it was having a positive effect.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

https://www.ft.com

58% of CEO's said Brexit already having a negative effect on their business.

Just 11% said it was having a positive effect.

indeed so

The CEOs made is very clear their primary concern was labour shortage i.e. in ordinary English they were concerned that wages would rise.
None seemed to mention falling sales as a concern.

Whilst the income of CEO rises in all circumstances, I doubt that ordinary people will cry themsleves to sleep about gettting a pay rise. (except the EUphile zeolots of course)

Conrad

The FT have been running that same story since June 23rd. Ardent corporate status quo monkeys that don't see the big picture.


Of course some companies fear wages might have to rise when we cut off unlimited labour supply.
Perish the thought they might have to get back into the old habit of getting into schools going recruitment programmes and on the job training!!

Conrad

Monday 6 February 2017 09.42 GMT Last modified on Monday 6 February 2017 09.58 GMT

The number of new cars registered in the UK hit a 12-year high in January, with electric vehicles taking a record share of the market, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).


The industry body had warned of a slowdown in the motor trade in 2017 because of the impact of the weak pound, but there was no sign of deceleration in the first monthly numbers of the year.
Drivers registered 174,564 cars in January, up 2.9% on last year, to reach the highest monthly level since 2005, the trade body said.

davomcdave

The Eurozone seems to be getting on just fine:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

The Eurozone economy advanced 0.5 percent on quarter in the three months to December of 2016, following an upwardly revised 0.4 percent growth in the previous period and better than market expectations of a 0.4 percent expansion, the preliminary flash estimate showed.

Almost exactly the same growth rate as the UK:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

The UK economy advanced 0.6 percent on quarter in the three months to December of 2016, the same pace as in the previous period and better than market expectations of a 0.5 percent expansion, preliminary estimates showed. Services industries were the main drivers of growth, with a strong contribution from retail sales and travel agency services. Meanwhile, construction recovered slightly and production industries showed no growth, as a sharp contraction in mining and oil production offset a rebound in manufacturing and utilities. Looking at 2016 as a whole, growth slowed modestly to 2 percent from 2.2 percent in 2015 and 3.1 percent in 2014. GDP Growth Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 0.61 percent from 1955 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 5 percent in the first quarter of 1973 and a record low of -2.70 percent in the first quarter of 1974.

CLAPTON

davomcdave wrote: »

The Eurozone seems to be getting on just fine:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth



Almost exactly the same growth rate as the UK:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

so the EU did 0.5% last qrt and 1.7% for the year
and Uk did 0.6% for the qrt and 2% for the year

clearly almost exactly the same

davomcdave

CLAPTON wrote: »

so the EU did 0.5% last qrt and 1.7% for the year
and Uk did 0.6% for the qrt and 2% for the year

clearly almost exactly the same

What do you think the margin of error is for GDP statistics? Those two numbers are exactly the same statistically.

This is a great article on GDP data and how confident we can be in it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/10/tomorrows-gdp-figure-will-be-wrong/

0.1% for a quarter is meaningless, unmeasurable.

mrginge

davomcdave wrote: »

What do you think the margin of error is for GDP statistics? Those two numbers are exactly the same statistically.

This is a great article on GDP data and how confident we can be in it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/10/tomorrows-gdp-figure-will-be-wrong/

0.1% for a quarter is meaningless, unmeasurable.

I mean you could argue that (if the same methodology had been applied to both measures) the uk performed 20% better than the EU in qtr 4.

But then you could also say that the EU were the winners because they increased from q3 by 5% more than the UK did.

CLAPTON

davomcdave wrote: »

What do you think the margin of error is for GDP statistics? Those two numbers are exactly the same statistically.

This is a great article on GDP data and how confident we can be in it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/10/tomorrows-gdp-figure-will-be-wrong/

0.1% for a quarter is meaningless, unmeasurable.

reminds me of that OBR statistics that showed that brexit would cause a 0.1% per capita lose of GDP per annum: all the EUophiles got very excited about the coming armegeddon

just for the future : what do you consider is statistically signifant and why do you think thet the EU is doing alright?

davomcdave

CLAPTON wrote: »

just for the future : what do you consider is statistically signifant

Good question.

I'd rather use a number from the ONS but I don't think they have a margin of error made public for GDP statistics so I'm going to have to make something up I suppose (this is the internet where such things are encouraged).

0.1% difference in a quarter is definitely insignificant and TBH most quarterly changes in growth rates are probably completely unreliable unless they are remarkably large. Annually maybe 0.5% or so is significant in the first one or two estimates. Maybe actually 0.5% or a bit less on later estimates.

CLAPTON wrote: »

and why do you think thet the EU is doing alright?

Because so many of the numbers are moving in a good direction. GDP seems to be rising but that is backed up by employment generally rising and unemployment generally falling.

Looking at the data in the round is more helpful I think than looking at a single data point. If GDP was rising and unemployment rising too for example then you have to wonder what's going on. Is one or other number wrong? Has something changed structurally? Has a definition changed? Something else?

You appear to me to want to view the EU in a certain way but the data is what it is. It could be wrong or misinterpreted of course but if you look at Eurozone data then things seem to be looking up on average.