« Populists as snake oil sellers | Main | Not understanding the right »

November 25, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Magnus

This is clever, but to be fair you'd need to know how down/upbeat they'd have been under Bremain. I suspect your indicator might have been a little bit better but not massively different.

joe

Business investment for 2016 Q3 was probably planned in 2015. There was no reason to cut them on June 24th as it will be years before leaving EU, if ever. 2017 on should be horrendous for brand new investment.

Consumers have had little spending power since 2008 crash, though some small pay rises are coming through. They are aware inflation is going up and the big spend essential items they have put off buying are best bought asap. They are buying on credit cards - hoping for the best to pay the cards off. Smaller retailers are already really struggling. Once these big items are out of the way retail spending will rapidly wane.

I do wish these Brexiters would have the courage to produce a forward financial plan of their own for UK, so that their views could be exposed, once and for, all as totally ridiculous.

am

The OBR forecast 2.1 growth for 2016. Two days later, Friday, the annualised rate was 2.3 at end of q3 2016. It doesn't help folks credibility when their forecast, or part of it, looks wrong after only two. You probably haven't read their document but some of their other 2016 forecast are equally bizarre including inflation at 0.8 whereas most would think it would go above the current 0.9.
An important point is what is their cut off date for submission of their projections and how does it relate to time of published hard data. Bit like the OECD today: they seemed to have missed a lot of ONS published hard data.
IF you can't read the ONS website then you just won't have much credibility.
brexitforecastmacro = inability/unwillingness to read ONS website.

Blissex

«"lower trade flows, lower investment, lower net inward migration than we would otherwise have seen, and hence lower potential output."

Is this claim wrong?»

What a clever oxonian technique!

Of course any extra worker that gets added to the workforce adds to its "potential output": it is a truism; and the same for investment and imports.

Any increase in available inputs in practice adds to "potential output", particular emphasis on "potential". But any increase in inputs is likely to add to actual outputs.

But this is little more than sophistry. What we should ask about is actual overall impact and in particular the distributional impact, whose real income will be higher or lower "than we would otherwise have seen".

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad