|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 8, 2023 19:02:16 GMT
It is on page 1 of their report - you have actually read the report haven't you?  What a pity you never understood it... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 22:19:44 GMT
It is on page 1 of their report - you have actually read the report haven't you? I have. Yes. yet you didn't understand it... |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 9, 2023 7:51:49 GMT
It's already been rebutted. It's old NEWS. If you believe it hasn't been rebutted successfully, you'd know about the flaws in assumptions and the cherry picked dates used to curate such a narrative around a dodgy doppelganger. Stop flapping your gums that the assumptions are flawed and the doppelganger dodgy. How are they flawed and how is it dodgy are the questions you must answer. Listen to you telling me what I "must" do. I asked you for evidence to demonstrate how Brexit has damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed. You failed to show this. Yet you demand I do what you request. Sorry doesn't work like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 8:14:15 GMT
yet you didn't understand it... You wish! What you can do, though, is copy and paste the paragraph or sentence which states that 5.5% is the growth rate and not the shortfall. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 9, 2023 8:17:00 GMT
yet you didn't understand it... You wish! What you can do, though, is copy and paste the paragraph or sentence which states that 5.5% is the growth rate and not the shortfall. Nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed it was the growth rate - if you really did read the document you clearly did not understand it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 8:28:24 GMT
Stop flapping your gums that the assumptions are flawed and the doppelganger dodgy. How are they flawed and how is it dodgy are the questions you must answer. Listen to you telling me what I "must" do. I asked you for evidence to demonstrate how Brexit has damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed. You failed to show this. Yet you demand I do what you request. Sorry doesn't work like that. Trust you to be so self-centred.  The emphasis is on the questions mentioned, not on you. That is, the questions are a must. I have given you evidence. You have chosen to pretend they are not the evidence you want -- not my problem. I note that you are now not as emphatic about this as you used to be. You now qualify your statement with a caveat -- "damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed." You do know what it means, don't you? You now admit that Brexit has had and continue to have a negative effect on the UK economy -- only that the damage is not as bad as claimed. NIce to know that you have changed your perspective for the better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 8:30:08 GMT
You wish! What you can do, though, is copy and paste the paragraph or sentence which states that 5.5% is the growth rate and not the shortfall. Nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed it was the growth rate - if you really did read the document you clearly did not understand it. Well, you did. I kept pointing it out but you never denied it, so you did! Obviously, you now disown your misinterpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 9, 2023 8:34:56 GMT
Listen to you telling me what I "must" do. I asked you for evidence to demonstrate how Brexit has damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed. You failed to show this. Yet you demand I do what you request. Sorry doesn't work like that. Trust you to be so self-centred. The emphasis is on the questions mentioned, not on you. That is, the questions are a must. I have given you evidence. You have chosen to pretend they are not the evidence you want -- not my problem. I note that you are now not as emphatic about this as you used to be. You now qualify your statement with a caveat -- "damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed." You do know what it means, don't you? You now admit that Brexit has had and continue to have a negative effect on the UK economy -- only that the damage is not as bad as claimed. NIce to know that you have changed your perspective for the better. You've given no evidence. You gave an economic 101 correlation equals causation effect and argued that was your evidence Lol. You can't even show that Brexit has damaged the economy. I am not admitting anything. Suffice to say it is more complicated than you would have us believe. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE Brexit has had a negative effect on the economy. If you actually had any real evidence to show you would have supplied this long ago. The fact is you haven't because the fact is you can't. Now you're supplying links you don't understand based on a doppelganger approach where assumptions are placed in based on a desired output which coincidentally plays to your bias. It's worth the square root of fuck all frankly, and has been rubbished. Let's look at your evidence so far: - Correlation equals causation - And a hypothetical doppleganger modelling that is firmly based on the assumptions placed into it. Hardly, evidence. Never mind hard evidence. Comeback next week when you've read another headline and I'll happily school you again on why you sit on precarious ground. Until then, ciao. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 9, 2023 8:40:22 GMT
Nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed it was the growth rate - if you really did read the document you clearly did not understand it. Well, you did. I kept pointing it out but you never denied it, so you did! Obviously, you now disown your misinterpretation. I suggest you learn read or at least understand English - this explains why you are having so much trouble. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 11:15:08 GMT
Trust you to be so self-centred. The emphasis is on the questions mentioned, not on you. That is, the questions are a must. I have given you evidence. You have chosen to pretend they are not the evidence you want -- not my problem. I note that you are now not as emphatic about this as you used to be. You now qualify your statement with a caveat -- "damaged the economy as bad as you had claimed." You do know what it means, don't you? You now admit that Brexit has had and continue to have a negative effect on the UK economy -- only that the damage is not as bad as claimed. NIce to know that you have changed your perspective for the better. You've given no evidence. You gave an economic 101 correlation equals causation effect and argued that was your evidence Lol. You can't even show that Brexit has damaged the economy. I am not admitting anything. Suffice to say it is more complicated than you would have us believe. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE Brexit has had a negative effect on the economy. If you actually had any real evidence to show you would have supplied this long ago. The fact is you haven't because the fact is you can't. Now you're supplying links you don't understand based on a doppelganger approach where assumptions are placed in based on a desired output which coincidentally plays to your bias. It's worth the square root of fuck all frankly, and has been rubbished. Let's look at your evidence so far: - Correlation equals causation - And a hypothetical doppleganger modelling that is firmly based on the assumptions placed into it. Hardly, evidence. Never mind hard evidence. Comeback next week when you've read another headline and I'll happily school you again on why you sit on precarious ground. Until then, ciao. I have given you evidence. Evidence corroborative, supportive of my statements. Factual, conclusive, strong, perfectly clear; perfectly safe evidence, in fact. But you choose to pretend otherwise. That, or you're a natural born idiot. No, no. You come back to me, not the other way around. You're the one who decided to resurrect your own stupidity, remember? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 11:16:54 GMT
Well, you did. I kept pointing it out but you never denied it, so you did! Obviously, you now disown your misinterpretation. I suggest you learn read or at least understand English - this explains why you are having so much trouble. You're the one who doesn't know the difference between "shortfall" and "growth rate". Hello?  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 9, 2023 11:33:29 GMT
I suggest you learn read or at least understand English - this explains why you are having so much trouble. You're the one who doesn't know the difference between "shortfall" and "growth rate". Hello? If you have a shortfall it means you have had a lower growth rate.. Do you not understand anything about economics? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 14:46:15 GMT
You're the one who doesn't know the difference between "shortfall" and "growth rate". Hello? If you have a shortfall it means you have had a lower growth rate.. Do you not understand anything about economics? I do understand that within the context of the study, the following statement does not make sense: "It states that we would have grown by another 5.5% - what other interpretation is there?."In any event, since you have convinced yourself that you are not misinterpreting the study; why don't you let us know how you arrive at the £33 billion shortfall using 5.5% as an additional growth rate. Remember, the figure £33 billion is constant since the study already concludes that that is the gap between the Factual UK GDP and the Contra Factual UK GDP at the end of Q2, YE 2022. Go! |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 9, 2023 14:56:24 GMT
Bad losers don't even understand democracy never mind economics.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 9, 2023 17:39:14 GMT
Bad losers don't even understand democracy never mind economics. But they do recognise what’s hitting them and others in their pockets, despite the cries of “it’s affecting other countries too”, when they can see it isn’t to anything like the same degree… |
|
The emphasis is on the questions mentioned, not on you. That is, the questions are a must. 
