Please can leavers please tell me how Brexit will benefit us?

[DaveGrohlsMuse]

Whenever this is asked mid-thread, it's never answered. There's plenty of information out there about how the UK had benefited from membership, but I really struggle to find info on how it's had a negative impact.
So in Jan 2021, once the transition period is over and we actually start to see the impact of the decision, what will improve? How will yours, and mine, and the general population's lives improve?

@malylis

Child benefits were reformed by so called experts. Under the existing system a family who has a single earner on £60K or more is not entitled to child benefit. However, the family next door that has the same number of children with two earners in £50K each for a total household income of £100K receives the full amount of child benefits.

How is that expertise?

BTW you did not answer my question why the experts did not tell everyone to sell before the 1987 stock market crash.

Never claimed experts were infallible. However as we don't tax household income it was always going to be difficult to put a threshold on CB, and some people were always going to be better off/worse off. However the number of households existing in the double earnings bracket you cite is very low.

You are begging the question with that thing about the 1987 crash too. There is an explanation of course in that individual events caused by irrationality are difficult to predict (although I doubt you have read Shillers's study into the 87 crash). However this still doesn't answer my point in that if economic experts were so unreliable and unable to provide forecasts of any use, why does every major organisation employ them?

You also fail to recognise the difference between events that can be predicted (brexit) with conditions that can be identified.
.

Never claimed experts were infallible

Good that you have acknowledged there is no crystal ball.

However the number of households existing in the double earnings bracket you cite is very low

How does that make it a good decision that a family with 100K per year gets child benefits and a single earner family next door with 60K receives no child benefit?

although I doubt you have read Shillers's study into the 87 crash

Was the study prepared before the crash or was another hindsight study which are easy to produce and of no value whatsoever to those who lost out?

However this still doesn't answer my point in that if economic experts were so unreliable and unable to provide forecasts of any use, why does every major organisation employ them?

That's my question too. I would not employ them. Seems to be common that failure is rewarded in the UK.

Banking was a good example. Irresponsible lending by banks on the assumption tha property values will always increase was root of banking crisis. However, they were bailed out at Taxpayers cost and the bonusses continued! Those that did get booted got big payouts. Remember Fred the Shred. Take a look at;

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6169589/Fred-Shred-line-17m-pension.html

And for econimists take a look at;

www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

You also fail to recognise the difference between events that can be predicted (brexit) with conditions that can be identified

Polls suggested remain would win.

Actually many polls predicted a split and in the early part of the campaign leave were ahead on the polls.

The child benefit stuff has been explained no need to do it again.

You would not employ economists or experts because you know to little about economics or about how forecasts as made, or about the benefits of preparing such work.

The root of the banking crisis in the UK was nothing to do with property prices here, and even in the US it was to do with the liabilities created by CDOs.

No need for me to look at bankers bonuses, this is nothing to do with our debate.

Its funny that you bang on about crystal balls when it has been proven that the treasury forecasts were correct on inflation, lost gdp, fall in the value of the currency and lower investment. As previously stated the "shock" scenarios had certain parameters that were not met.

Essentially your argument is, because experts don't get everything right everytime we can discount their advice on everything.

Its ridiculous.

And the Benefits are........?

Farage, Rees-Mogg, Davis, Redwood etc. all seem a bit quiet, which is an improvement. Maybe they will clear out altogether? Financially they will be able to do a Cameron when they run away and make Millions.

Meanwhile, for ordinary folk?

Rees Mogg is always busy this time of year - he's counting his money and placing it away from taxation

Good to see Rees-Mogg supporting this country by paying his dues.

Actually many polls predicted a split and in the early part of the campaign leave were ahead on the polls

There was always going to be a split as only two options on the ballot paper.

The child benefit stuff has been explained no need to do it again

So you think the family with 100K gets child benefit and the family with 60K does not is a good system?

You would not employ economists or experts because you know to little about economics or about how forecasts as made, or about the benefits of preparing such work

Look at:

www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

The root of the banking crisis in the UK was nothing to do with property prices here

I have a cousin who works in banking and it was all about assumed increases in property. When I bought house in Scotland I asked for 110K mortage. They offered 494K as their computer said I could afford the repayments.

No need for me to look at bankers bonuses, this is nothing to do with our debate

But demontrates my point that UK rewards failure. However, that can't be blamed on the EU.

Its funny that you bang on about crystal balls when it has been proven that the treasury forecasts were correct on inflation, lost gdp, fall in the value of the currency and lower investment. As previously stated the "shock" scenarios had certain parameters that were not met

The figures 500,000 to 800,000 job loses in the headlines will have caught peoples'eyes a lot more than;

Currency
Inflation
GDP
Lower investment

I read last night that Ireland is dealing with lack of housing, bad hospitals and problems in schools.
These are their election issues. Boris, is not responsible for that.
Scotland are even worse.
Germany, France and may more have the same problems with funding.
So who takes the blain, as I know you that Boris is the root of all evil, but he isn't that clever.

Essentially your argument is, because experts don't get everything right everytime we can discount their advice on everything

Take a look at;

www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors.

Main points are;

The Bank of England’s chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote

Massively wrong in 2008 and massively wrong again years later

Andrew Haldane, said it was “a fair cop” referring to a series of forecasting errors before and after the financial crash which had brought the profession’s reputation into question

The underlined portion is pure class.

The bank has come under intense criticism for predicting a dramatic slowdown in the UK’s fortunes in the event of a vote for Brexit only for the economy to bounce back strongly and remain one of the best performing in the developed world

The underlined portion is also pure class.

Haldane is known to be concerned about mounting criticism of experts and the potential for Threadneedle Street’s forecasts to be dismissed by politicians if errors persist

last year attacked the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, for predicting a dramatic slowdown in growth if the country voted to leave the EU

Gove said last week that when he said experts needed to be challenged, he meant economists in particular. In a debate with Stephanie Flanders, the former BBC economics editor, he cited an academic study to support his argument that expert economists were not good at making predictions

The underlined portions get better.

*Flanders, who now works for JP Morgan, agreed that economists had a long record of being wrong on direct forecasts while expressing concerns about the consequences of expertise being dismissed out of hand. “I think we’ve seen over the last few years economists and indeed the elite, the technocrats, can be wrong in some pretty big areas,” she said. “They were wrong in their assumptions about certain financial instruments and developments, which helped contribute to the financial crisis.

The underlined portion about long record is excellent.
Forecasts by the Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Paris-based OECD, all pointed to a recession after the vote, based on assumptions of steeply declining consumer spending and business investment

UK did not go into recession. Hahahaha.

Haldane said: “It’s a fair cop to say the profession is to some degree in crisis. It’s not the first time it has happened

And the hits keep on coming.

You still fail to address the point made about the methodology of the forecasts.

The UK would have gone into recession had Cameron not resigned and the BOE not intervened.

" I have a cousin who works in banking" then they would know that the problem in the UK was the exposure of UK banks to the US crisis, not housing in the UK (pirces dipped when the crisis started not before indicating that this was a reaction not a trigger).

There are of course reasons why the crash of 2008 was unforeseen, mainly due to banks manipulation of their balance sheets.

I do however love the way you invoke expert analysis when it suits you, and return to the "headlines" point when you can't disagree.

This is over.

You still fail to address the point made about the methodology of the forecasts

The link is sent (to which you have not commented upon at all) suggests that methodolgy used by so called economic experts are rubbish. Hence the reason they are wrong so many times.

I do however love the way you invoke expert analysis when it suits you, and return to the "headlines" point when you can't disagree

So reply to the points raised in the link. The conclusion is clear:

So called Economic Experts have bad track record when it comes to making predictions.

If the points you raised about

Currency
Inflation
GDP

were of any significance why did the UK not enter the recession that was forecast (wrongly again).

This is over

Another I have sent packing with tail between their legs.

Link is

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/brexit-treasury-jobs-recession_uk_5742d2dde4b00006e9aed9f1/

Link says:

The analysis, looking at the short-term two-year effect of leaving

So that's Jan 2021 - Jan 2023

Mystery -' another I have sent packing with tail between their legs'

Are you this rude in real life?

@Mockers2020Vision

The link says:

As many as 820,000 jobs could be lost if Britain votes to leave the European Union, the Government has said in a controversial 'Brexit' analysis

The key phrase is if Brtain votes to leave

I can't see a reference to Jan 2021-Jan 2023. After all how did DC and GO know when the leave date would be?

The key points were

• Between 520,000 and 820,00 jobs lost - Unemployment has decreased

• Wages down £800-a-year - wages have risen Look at:

www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/uk-wages-rise-at-fastest-rate-for-a-decade-despite-brexit-risks

• Average house prices down 10% to 18% - house prices have risen Look at

www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/06/uk-house-prices-rise-despite-uncertainty-over-brexit-and-election

• Pound falls between 13% and 15% - which helps exports over time

• A year-long recession - never happened Look at

brexit.com/analysis/what-is-the-real-truth-about-the-uk-economy-since-the-referendum/

I am content for people to read the article and come to their own conclusions about what it means.

Nice glossing over the words "as many as" and "could" there.

Malylis I salute your sticking power. I'm fed up with banging my head against this particularly obtuse brick wall.

Are you this rude in real life

In Arbitrations my biggest buzz comes from exposing so called expert witnesses and witnesses in general as liars and their testimony is unreliable.

Unlike the civil courts, neither the applicant or the defendants, counsel can't butt in with the word Objection. However, if requested by Malylis I will amend the post as to be fair the last comment was more subjective than objective.

@BurneyFanny

I look forward to Malylis comment on the link about Economists being unreliable.

I think since the UK situation is so fluid at this time, people need to realise the results of the trade deals can and will dramatically change any forecast.

None of the arbitration lawyers I know would have time to astro-turf a Mumsnet thread. None of the successful ones, anyway.

I think since the UK situation is so fluid at this time, people need to realise the results of the trade deals can and will dramatically change any forecast.

I think you need to realise the limitations of the trade deals on offer.

None of the arbitration lawyers I know would have time to astro-turf a Mumsnet thread. None of the successful ones, anyway.

Nor would they randomly capitalise Arbitration and Objection.

According to the reports, even any trade deal is still in debate.