UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Mate, firstly.
Calm down.
Secondly, you're wrong, it is GDP not GDP per capita and it is at least 200bn.
These are facts, accept the facts.
LOL
Fuck off and learn something before you give it large pal.
Productivity, as in GDP per capita. Not GDP.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions
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 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.
Fucking hell,
GDP is one thing
GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards
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.
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.
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.
So why do Bloomberg put it at 100bn based on that 4% figure?
Yeah, sounds unlikely doesn't it?
Let me ask you, what do you think it's cost the UK per year in billion pounds?
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.