Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee

Snapshot of Eurozone inflation falls to 5.5% in sharp contrast to UK. Economists put reason for divergence down to Brexit and Britain’s energy price guarantee.

    • G4Z@feddit.uk
      11·
      1 year ago

      Sure, the OBR says 4% GDP loss per year.

      3.1 trillion per year GDP, let’s make it 5% just to make it easy

      150 billion per year, x 2+ years, it’s well over 200bn.

      Bloomberg also agrees

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output

      So, you going to accept this fact then? or is it going to be fingers in ears?

      Your Google fu sucks as does your critical thinking skills

      What is this supposed to prove?

      I’m saying, they have 2 of the largest companies in the world you’ve pointed to a company with 34 employees and 2 farms (1 in construction) In farm in Germany has 422 employees (source linkedin for both) so it’s 10 times as big a company as the one you linked.

      Yes, I did vote for it. Very happy with it. Guess it just sucks to be you

      Haha, yeah I can tell, you won’t accept reality, you can’t accept you’ve made a huge mistake, you can’t handle the truth!

      Like I said, you’re all remarkably gullible, I mean similar.

      • emerty@feddit.uk
        11·
        1 year ago

        Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

        LOL, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT 😂😂😂😂

        • G4Z@feddit.uk
          11·
          1 year ago

          Lol, the OBR said 4% of GDP per CAPITA OVER 15 YEARS

          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.

            • G4Z@feddit.uk
              11·
              1 year ago

              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 productivity 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.

              • emerty@feddit.uk
                1·
                1 year ago

                Fucking hell,

                GDP is one thing

                Gross domestic product is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by a country or countries.

                GDP per capita is a measure of productivity and living standards

                What Is GDP Per Capita? Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is an economic metric that breaks down a country’s economic output per person. Economists use GDP per capita to determine how prosperous countries are based on their economic growth GDP per capita is calculated by dividing the GDP of a nation by its population. Countries with the higher GDP per capita tend to be those that are industrial, developed countries

                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.

                • G4Z@feddit.uk
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • emerty@feddit.uk
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

              • emerty@feddit.uk
                1·
                1 year ago

                GDP growth was similar in the twentieth century and the nineteenth, averaging 2.1 per cent in both cases. Higher productivity growth in the twentieth century therefore is associated with weaker growth of total hours worked, due to a combination of weaker employment growth and falling average hours

                You don’t understand your own link, 🤡