Politics

[Cheese]

Meanwhile, at least we scored a last minute fluke against Russia so we're not bottom of the table..

https://businessfacilities.com/economic-outlook-gdp-growth-data-from-oecd/

[Spider]

3 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Meanwhile, at least we scored a last minute fluke against Russia so we're not bottom of the table..

https://businessfacilities.com/economic-outlook-gdp-growth-data-from-oecd/

When Russia win the war, they’ll fly up that table 

[bolty58]

12 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Same old, same old.

Ignore the detail for the benefit of a good moan.

If the eu hadn't lost its initial identity, we would still be in it. There is a lesson there.

Spot on. Gone way beyond a trading bloc and is well down the track to becoming a federal republic with it's own army and governed by the Germans! They will have won after all! The next step will be lebensraum.

[bolty58]

8 hours ago, Winchester White said:

 

You lost. Get over it FFS.

[gonzo]

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

You lost. Get over it FFS.

Think we all lost matey

[Winchester White]

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

You lost. Get over it FFS.

I just think it's funny that this is about the only good news we've had since Brexit and its worth 2 fifths of fuck all.

Anyway, there are no winners in this whole sorry debacle. Well, apart from the very rich and Boris Johnson getting himself into No.10.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Winchester White

[mickbrown]

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

Think we all lost matey

He didn't. It's fuck all to do with Australians

[Sweep]

20 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

He didn't. It's fuck all to do with Australians

they got a decent trade deal because of it, that fucks over the UK farming industry 🙂

[Casino]

Election now, please

 

[Mounts Kipper]

15 hours ago, gonzo said:

Think we all lost matey

What did we lose? 🤣

[royal white]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

What did we lose? 🤣

🌞by the looks of it. 

[bolty58]

16 hours ago, Sweep said:

they got a decent trade deal because of it, that fucks over the UK farming industry 🙂

That prick should still be concentrating on the reformation of the USSR.

[bolty58]

3 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

What did we lose? 🤣

All of that marvellously massive unelected bureaucracy. It's the future y'know.

[Spider]

5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

All of that marvellously massive unelected bureaucracy. It's the future y'know.

Unelected leaders, you say

[globaldiver]

On 17/07/2023 at 07:16, Winchester White said:

I just think it's funny that this is about the only good news we've had since Brexit and its worth 2 fifths of fuck all.

Anyway, there are no winners in this whole sorry debacle. Well, apart from the very rich and Boris Johnson getting himself into No.10.

Is it worth v little? Perhaps not

[globaldiver]

1 minute ago, globaldiver said:

Is it worth v little? Perhaps not

The UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), signed this weekend by Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch, ought to be a cause for celebration. It brings us into a trade area of 500 million people, covering 13% of global GDP.

Much of the reporting, however, emphasises that official estimates of the actual economic benefits are very small. The BBC’s anti-climactic write-up notes that, ‘gains for the UK from joining are expected to be modest’, and ‘the Government estimates it will add 0.08% to the size of the economy’ – and even that only over a number of years. The BBC report briefly mentions a ‘boost for the service sector’ under ‘benefits’ – though in such a cursory manner as to suggest this is barely worth consideration.

Yet that rather glum picture is misleading. The seemingly crucial ‘0.08% of GDP’ figure presumably comes from the Department for International Trade’s document, ‘UK Accession to CPTPP: The UK’s Strategic Approach’. That gave the figure of a £1.8bn increase in GDP (which is about 0.08%) but highlighted the point that this was the result of ‘static modelling’. (It is also based on a GTAP dataset from 2014, so the figures it is based on are almost a decade old.)

And even in the static modelling, there are considerably larger gains available. The DIT also applied their approach to a scenario in which Thailand and South Korea join the CPTPP. Adding these large countries resulted in slightly more than a trebling of the estimated benefits to Britain. Adding the United States as well (assuming no prior deal between the UK and US) multiplied the benefit by a further three and half. The benefit then is worth nearly £20bn.

More important than that, however, are the limitations of static modelling itself. What it does is presume that the effect of the trade deal is a reallocation of production from one sector to another, according to where that production is most efficiently undertaken. That is certainly a gain from trade, and one routinely taught in elementary economics. 

The essence of the point is much like observing that it’s not usually best to grow tropical fruit in Scotland. So it will be that, to some extent, British accession to the CPTPP will move a little production from here to there, and there to here. But in the modern world, with a few special exceptions, the remaining opportunities for this kind of benefit are small. The large benefits have been acquired through the trade that already occurs.

So what else is there? The DIT noted that no account was taken of improved resilience of demand. The point here is that a wider range of markets for sales helps protect British business from cyclical fluctuations in its existing markets. Similarly, supply-chain resilience is improved as the range of feasible sources of materials grows. In addition to these things, joining a specific trade arrangement offers some security against rising protectionism in the world generally. 

Then there is the apparent trend in the modern world for a growth of and lengthening of global value chains. As that continues, trade links facilitated by arrangements like the CPTPP will be of more value than they seem to be in the static modelling. The DIT also mentioned the point that it is very reasonable to expect the economies of the member countries to grow quickly in the foreseeable future. As that happens, access to their markets becomes more valuable.

Amongst all these omitted factors, though, surely the most important is the one the DIT described as ‘The full range of potential for the so-called “dynamic effects” resulting from increased trade on the long run growth rate of productivity of the economy’. In this context, the ‘growth’ of the economy means not the one-time increase in output resulting from the reallocation of production. It means the year-on-year small percentage increases in output arising from finding progressively better ways of producing things, and better things to produce.

Since they are concerned precisely with the finding out of things as yet unknown, the specific sources of benefit are numerous, but of their nature difficult to specify precisely. One simple point is that wider trade increases the intensity of competition, and that generates efficiencies and greater output. 

Another might be that larger trading areas promote a fuller exploitation of economies of scale, and again improved efficiency and greater output. Anything that promotes the exchange of ideas might bring such a benefit – and ‘exchange’ might amount to no more than imitating the superior approaches of others.

[Winchester White]

3 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

Is it worth v little? Perhaps not

I genuinely hope you are correct, we need some good news.

[globaldiver]

21 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

I genuinely hope you are correct, we need some good news.

There’s plenty of good news around

[Spider]

4 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

There’s plenty of good news around

It’s only good news when people have more cash in their pockets.

Seems that mortgages, energy and food prices are preventing that happening.

But that’s a broader view. There’s good news if you’re looking for it based on how it affects you I suppose

[globaldiver]

9 minutes ago, Spider said:

It’s only good news when people have more cash in their pockets.

Seems that mortgages, energy and food prices are preventing that happening.

But that’s a broader view. There’s good news if you’re looking for it based on how it affects you I suppose

That’s a partial view. There are lots of people and businesses doing OK, or better.

[Spider]

1 minute ago, globaldiver said:

That’s a partial view. There are lots of people and businesses doing OK, or better.

Money goes up faster than it comes down, you know this.

[Not in Crawley]

54 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

The UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), signed this weekend by Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch, ought to be a cause for celebration. It brings us into a trade area of 500 million people, covering 13% of global GDP.

Much of the reporting, however, emphasises that official estimates of the actual economic benefits are very small. The BBC’s anti-climactic write-up notes that, ‘gains for the UK from joining are expected to be modest’, and ‘the Government estimates it will add 0.08% to the size of the economy’ – and even that only over a number of years. The BBC report briefly mentions a ‘boost for the service sector’ under ‘benefits’ – though in such a cursory manner as to suggest this is barely worth consideration.

Yet that rather glum picture is misleading. The seemingly crucial ‘0.08% of GDP’ figure presumably comes from the Department for International Trade’s document, ‘UK Accession to CPTPP: The UK’s Strategic Approach’. That gave the figure of a £1.8bn increase in GDP (which is about 0.08%) but highlighted the point that this was the result of ‘static modelling’. (It is also based on a GTAP dataset from 2014, so the figures it is based on are almost a decade old.)

And even in the static modelling, there are considerably larger gains available. The DIT also applied their approach to a scenario in which Thailand and South Korea join the CPTPP. Adding these large countries resulted in slightly more than a trebling of the estimated benefits to Britain. Adding the United States as well (assuming no prior deal between the UK and US) multiplied the benefit by a further three and half. The benefit then is worth nearly £20bn.

More important than that, however, are the limitations of static modelling itself. What it does is presume that the effect of the trade deal is a reallocation of production from one sector to another, according to where that production is most efficiently undertaken. That is certainly a gain from trade, and one routinely taught in elementary economics. 

The essence of the point is much like observing that it’s not usually best to grow tropical fruit in Scotland. So it will be that, to some extent, British accession to the CPTPP will move a little production from here to there, and there to here. But in the modern world, with a few special exceptions, the remaining opportunities for this kind of benefit are small. The large benefits have been acquired through the trade that already occurs.

So what else is there? The DIT noted that no account was taken of improved resilience of demand. The point here is that a wider range of markets for sales helps protect British business from cyclical fluctuations in its existing markets. Similarly, supply-chain resilience is improved as the range of feasible sources of materials grows. In addition to these things, joining a specific trade arrangement offers some security against rising protectionism in the world generally. 

Then there is the apparent trend in the modern world for a growth of and lengthening of global value chains. As that continues, trade links facilitated by arrangements like the CPTPP will be of more value than they seem to be in the static modelling. The DIT also mentioned the point that it is very reasonable to expect the economies of the member countries to grow quickly in the foreseeable future. As that happens, access to their markets becomes more valuable.

Amongst all these omitted factors, though, surely the most important is the one the DIT described as ‘The full range of potential for the so-called “dynamic effects” resulting from increased trade on the long run growth rate of productivity of the economy’. In this context, the ‘growth’ of the economy means not the one-time increase in output resulting from the reallocation of production. It means the year-on-year small percentage increases in output arising from finding progressively better ways of producing things, and better things to produce.

Since they are concerned precisely with the finding out of things as yet unknown, the specific sources of benefit are numerous, but of their nature difficult to specify precisely. One simple point is that wider trade increases the intensity of competition, and that generates efficiencies and greater output. 

Another might be that larger trading areas promote a fuller exploitation of economies of scale, and again improved efficiency and greater output. Anything that promotes the exchange of ideas might bring such a benefit – and ‘exchange’ might amount to no more than imitating the superior approaches of others.

You'll be copy and pasting from CapX next. That isn't in-depth detail, that's scratching around for crumbs of comfort.

[Ani]

29 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

You'll be copy and pasting from CapX next. That isn't in-depth detail, that's scratching around for crumbs of comfort.

No he is right the Government are playing down the benefits so we all get a nice surprise. 

[Ani]

52 minutes ago, globaldiver said:

That’s a partial view. There are lots of people and businesses doing OK, or better.

Funeral directors did well during the pandemic , does not mean it was a good thing. 

[globaldiver]

Fine, I’ll leave you to continue to choose doom and gloom.