The Trade Implications of Brexit....

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

we are all arguing about maybe 4-8% of GDP so no one expects (or at least no one should expect) the UK to fall off a cliff and become a 2nd world country. The economy will readjust and most people seem to think downwards v what it would otherwise have been

I think this too, I expect a maybe 3% fall in GDP v what it would be by the 2020s (maybe more so if net migration falls big time). However this fall in output wont be even, for instance I still expect tourism to be a big growth area over the next 20 years. So if some outperform this -3% others will do even worse.

in a limited set of circumstances, we might expect GDP to rise with population
however we might very well expect per capita GDP to fall will rising population
and of course a smaller population will afford us a better quality of life so making us all richer.

Conrad

cells wrote: »

The economy will readjust and most people seem to think downwards v what it would otherwise have been

I think this too, I expect a maybe 3% fall in GDP v what it would be by the 2020s (maybe more so if net migration falls big time).

I don't expect any negative impacts, quite the reverse, but in any event we need to think about what the growth was going to be built on had we carried on as we were, namely;


+ Cheap mass imported labour (instead of UK firms running vocational training and our educators meeting any future needs we have for engineers etc)


+ Living off the back of debt and HPI


Brexit, lead by a new breed of conviction politician with a profound vision, is just the catalyst we've been waiting for to begin rebalancing to smarter growth and a real period of rising incomes.


I don't consider and ever rising public debt and unsustainable imports based economy to be much to crow about.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

I hope that we become a Tiger economy in a bounce back, but I'd rather we just stayed strong.

A consumption, debt and imports based economy is not my definition of genuine strength and resilience

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course a smaller population will afford us a better quality of life so making us all richer.

How so? A smaller population means an increased tax burden on the workers.

House prices would drop with demand, but everything else would cost more so there'd be no benefit.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

Kantar TNS has today published a poll showing that 53 per cent of Scots are against independence, which confirms the YouGov poll taken at the end of August showing 54 per cent of Scots against.


So this is pretty much where things were before the Brexit vote


Project fear item number 14, 'The break-up of the UK if we vote Brexit', rebuffed!

You forgot to mention the 12% undecided. Is far from rebuffed.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

How so? A smaller population means an increased tax burden on the workers.

House prices would drop with demand, but everything else would cost more so there'd be no benefit.

indeed so, is taxation really higher is countries with population less than 65 million : I didn't know that

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

however we might very well expect per capita GDP to fall will rising population
and of course a smaller population will afford us a better quality of life so making us all richer.

clearly we both disagree fundamentally with that. I would expect per capita GVA to increase with both population and population density. Why else would urbanization happen? Why do people voluntarily choose to live in dense urban cities?

Either way you have 'won'. The people of the UK voted against large EU net migration so the UK may see a slowing down of population growth.

cells

Herzlos wrote: »

How so? A smaller population means an increased tax burden on the workers.

House prices would drop with demand, but everything else would cost more so there'd be no benefit.

its obvious yet Clapton will try his best to muddy the water

If you took an example of a country with no immigrants at all and you went and shoot 10% of the 25-45 age group would the country be richer or poorer? Sure houses would cost a bit less as there are less people but the economy costs (primarily the children and the old) would be the same and the economic producers (primarily the 20-60 age group) would be smaller in number.

people jump in and say its ok to shoot this 10% we will invent robots or software or we will reduce the 1% long term unemployment to 0.5% but all those things can be done regardless of shooting this 10%. Some even claim its ok as we will only shoot the 10% that are the lest productive who clean the toilets and make sure the supermarket shelves are stacked, they foolishly forget that if you shoot that 10% you have to go to the 90% that is still alive and move then into these jobs that are vital and thus decrease their productivity

Less working migrants will have the same impact as shooting the same number of working age locals.


If it is decided that we need a cap, I would simply allow all the 20-30 year olds in and stop the 40+ group from coming. Its simple logic that someone who can work for 40 years is going to contribute more than someone who might work for just 10-20 years. That is true even if the former is the shelf stacker and the latter is a doctor.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

clearly we both disagree fundamentally with that. I would expect per capita GVA to increase with both population and population density. Why else would urbanization happen? Why do people voluntarily choose to live in dense urban cities?

Either way you have 'won'. The people of the UK voted against large EU net migration so the UK may see a slowing down of population growth.

lets ignore the argument for or against brexit but look at the economic science:

it would be simple to plot per capita gdp and population
I haven't done that but it is obviously not a increasing continuous curve

one can plot the population density of cities against per capita income and one will again not demonstrate a increasing continuous curve

and whyever would national boundaries have an impact on your hypothesis about density and size and income: does mathematic economics recognise national boundaries?

why look at Brazil when you can look at S America

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

...
Either way you have 'won'. The people of the UK voted against large EU net migration so the UK may see a slowing down of population growth.

You can only infer that conclusion.

The question put forward was clearly about the membership of a club called the EU.

Unfortunately, politicians on all sides retuned this in to a campaign on their own terms and the question got lost.

They could have invited European politicians over to espouse the greatness of the future plans for the EU, but they never did.

It's little wonder so much seems unresolved.