This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 12 Jun 16 8.33pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Jimenez
No mainly because business can operate without EU Directives & Union interference. Not the reason given when he moved. Or when he moved his business to Malta. Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (12 Jun 2016 8.35pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
premier fan BR4 12 Jun 16 9.01pm | |
---|---|
I have to say after watching numerous debates and interviews I have been growing increasingly impressed with Mr Farage and his rationale for voting out. I'm not so keen on his UKIP party but if the vote out win I could see him switching to the Conservative party and I would be very happy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Jun 16 11.37pm | |
---|---|
Just seen a vote leave ad on this site, I hope for balance there will be a remain one too
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
davenotamonkey 12 Jun 16 11.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Thanks for that. I stopped reading after the fourth of fifth paragraph from that Lilico chap. Brexit and his "Could be..." "likely.." "Ifs.." and "were to..." were just the concrete assurances the undecided must be looking for. You'll have them signed up for Leave in no time. Errrr. Newflash, you utter simpleton. It is an economic PROJECTION. Perhaps that has too many syllables for you. Let me explain as if you were a child: He has made some guesses about what might happen in the future. There are other boys and girls that also did this. They are called the Treasury (no, Kermit, nothing to do with treasure, sorry). They also made guesses about what might happen in the future. Why do they use all these "ifs" and "coulds", Kermit asks? Because they don't have a crystal fkucking ball. Idiot. You'll be disregarding the treasury report as well. It contains plenty of "ifs", "likely" and "coulds".
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 12.00am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Errrr. Newflash, you utter simpleton. It is an economic PROJECTION. Perhaps that has too many syllables for you. Let me explain as if you were a child: He has made some guesses about what might happen in the future. There are other boys and girls that also did this. They are called the Treasury (no, Kermit, nothing to do with treasure, sorry). They also made guesses about what might happen in the future. Why do they use all these "ifs" and "coulds", Kermit asks? Because they don't have a crystal fkucking ball. Idiot. You'll be disregarding the treasury report as well. It contains plenty of "ifs", "likely" and "coulds". Have a read of this. TBH I've never trusted economists because only about 3 or 4 of them predicted the 2008 crash and they were laughed at by the rest of the economist community (I hate that word but can't think of a collective noun for economist) Edit: [Link] Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 12.03am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 13 Jun 16 12.18am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
Not the reason given when he moved. Or when he moved his business to Malta. Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (12 Jun 2016 8.35pm) Sorry I meant business in general.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
davenotamonkey 13 Jun 16 12.41am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
From the first link “OK, but what about non-tariff barriers?”, I hear you cry. I didn't cry this so the bloke is obviously wrong
EDIT: Just checked out the author Andrew Lilico, who is somewhat discredited here. [Link] Edited by nickgusset (12 Jun 2016 8.36pm) Same applies to you, gusset. Congratulations for grasping the nature of financial forecasting. In particular you've discovered what a blunt tool macroeconomic predictions are (and hence why the treasury nor IMF can't even predict our growth for the next quarter) - well done! It's a shame you so readily (yet so conveniently) disregard those with whom you do not agree (you are fooling no-one on here with your "agonised indecision". The models he uses are exactly the same as those the treasury use. If his work is wrong, and flawed as you suggest, so by extension must be the findings from the treasury? But yes, well done! You found a blog site that "discredits" him (and, by extension EVERY economist if you go and read the amazon page of his book). We should probably tell the clients he lists as having worked for: the European Commission, the UK Government, various regulators and large firms. I hope he no longer frequently appears on Newsnight, the Today Programme, Sky News, CNBC and Bloomberg after being thoroughly discredited. He'll need to give back his PhD in macroeconomics and come clean to the BBC that they shouldn't have attributed the "essential theory" behind the Coalition's initial deficit reduction strategy to him. You get the idea. I've provided you with an example that builds (to me) extremely conservative and rational assumptions into the same models used by the treasury (whilst critiquing their more biased assumptions) and cannot therefore create the Brexitpocalyse as predicted. As someone who works along very similar principles, but in a different profession, this report passes the "smell test". His conclusion is that the outcome is between 1% loss and 2% gain in GDP. The statistical scatter in GDP growth rates since 1970 is around 1-2%. My conclusion: with more sensible assumptions, Brexit forecasts are economically neutral, with any variation in growth rate from the baseline entirely within the statistical noise.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
davenotamonkey 13 Jun 16 12.46am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Have a read of this. TBH I've never trusted economists because only about 3 or 4 of them predicted the 2008 crash and they were laughed at by the rest of the economist community (I hate that word but can't think of a collective noun for economist) Edit: [Link] Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 12.03am) This one did. Maybe we should heed what he says? I believe we might, however, be in agreement about the collective noun for economists ;-)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 16 1.00am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Same applies to you, gusset. Congratulations for grasping the nature of financial forecasting. In particular you've discovered what a blunt tool macroeconomic predictions are (and hence why the treasury nor IMF can't even predict our growth for the next quarter) - well done! It's a shame you so readily (yet so conveniently) disregard those with whom you do not agree (you are fooling no-one on here with your "agonised indecision". The models he uses are exactly the same as those the treasury use. If his work is wrong, and flawed as you suggest, so by extension must be the findings from the treasury? But yes, well done! You found a blog site that "discredits" him (and, by extension EVERY economist if you go and read the amazon page of his book). We should probably tell the clients he lists as having worked for: the European Commission, the UK Government, various regulators and large firms. I hope he no longer frequently appears on Newsnight, the Today Programme, Sky News, CNBC and Bloomberg after being thoroughly discredited. He'll need to give back his PhD in macroeconomics and come clean to the BBC that they shouldn't have attributed the "essential theory" behind the Coalition's initial deficit reduction strategy to him. You get the idea. I've provided you with an example that builds (to me) extremely conservative and rational assumptions into the same models used by the treasury (whilst critiquing their more biased assumptions) and cannot therefore create the Brexitpocalyse as predicted. As someone who works along very similar principles, but in a different profession, this report passes the "smell test". His conclusion is that the outcome is between 1% loss and 2% gain in GDP. The statistical scatter in GDP growth rates since 1970 is around 1-2%. My conclusion: with more sensible assumptions, Brexit forecasts are economically neutral, with any variation in growth rate from the baseline entirely within the statistical noise. Firstly, I will say that I have still not made my decision. Are you saying I am lying? Really. what would that gain me? What would be the point of it? 2nd, Please show a bit of respect, my name is Nick not Gusset. Do you call everyone by their last name? I am not disrespectful to you or others, perhaps some common courtesy on your part would give me and others a better impression of you. 3rd. I generally do not trust economists. We would not be in the s*** state we are if they actually could do their job. As I've said only a handful of economists saw the 2008 crash coming and they were laughed at. If they said well actually the chances of this are... rather than giving opinions as facts - yes I understand it is very very difficult to predict what will happen. Why are we listening to the same people who didn't see the crash coming? They were s*** at their job, yet we are still expected to believe them. 4th. When have treasury forecasts ever been accurate. If they were, then why does Osborne have to keep telling us that the previous forecasts are out of kilter with what actually happened. I'll repeat that I know it's an extremely difficult thing to accurately make predictions, so much so that they are rarely right. Why should I believe either side of the arguments predictions by economists when they are generally not that good?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 13 Jun 16 7.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Errrr. Newflash, you utter simpleton. It is an economic PROJECTION. Perhaps that has too many syllables for you. Let me explain as if you were a child: He has made some guesses about what might happen in the future. There are other boys and girls that also did this. They are called the Treasury (no, Kermit, nothing to do with treasure, sorry). They also made guesses about what might happen in the future. Why do they use all these "ifs" and "coulds", Kermit asks? Because they don't have a crystal fkucking ball. Idiot. You'll be disregarding the treasury report as well. It contains plenty of "ifs", "likely" and "coulds".
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
beagle pom tiddly om pom pom 13 Jun 16 9.41am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Errrr. Newflash, you utter simpleton. It is an economic PROJECTION. Perhaps that has too many syllables for you. Let me explain as if you were a child: He has made some guesses about what might happen in the future. There are other boys and girls that also did this. They are called the Treasury (no, Kermit, nothing to do with treasure, sorry). They also made guesses about what might happen in the future. Why do they use all these "ifs" and "coulds", Kermit asks? Because they don't have a crystal fkucking ball. Idiot. You'll be disregarding the treasury report as well. It contains plenty of "ifs", "likely" and "coulds". Could you not simply have said "There are ifs and buts because its's an economic projection" and left all the patronising insults out?
When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 13 Jun 16 10.07am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
odds pretty much 1 to 4 in favour of remain now across the board. Same as three weeks ago. More like 4/9 and 7/4 now.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.