|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 15, 2023 19:21:21 GMT
You've had loads of evidence that Brexit has and is harming the economy. You might be able to argue that the long term will outweigh the short term but there's been no evidence of a credible mechanism positioned to back that.
It's your pyrrhic victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 15, 2023 19:40:10 GMT
You've had loads of evidence that Brexit has and is harming the economy. You might be able to argue that the long term will outweigh the short term but there's been no evidence of a credible mechanism positioned to back that. It's your pyrrhic victory. No proof. You even admitted it yourself. The best you have is correlation and we all know that isn't proof. Unlucky. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 20:13:20 GMT
You and your hard evidence!  Anyway, No and No to your questions. It is idiotic to ask for hard evidence when the context given is hypothetical. Isn't it? And as far as hypotheses go, what I've given you is perfectly justifiable and highly probable. You want to disprove it? Fine, knock yourself out. I'll even watch you try -- and fail. Now, the other matter: what evidence do you have to prove that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has? And don't even try to wriggle out of it by throwing the ball back to me. You're the outlier here. The ball is in your court. You're the odd one out so the onus is on you -- not on me or anybody else -- to prove what you have been prattling on about. It's time that you put substance to your empty, meaningless pronouncements. So you admit that although you speak as though the UK would still be struggling to return to pre-GFC in 2023 if it weren't in the EU as fact, with your high modality statements, you've just made this up on nothing other than agenda because it isn't perfectly justifiable and highly probable because you have no justification for it other than an agenda. Glad we cleared that up. You are the one claiming Brexit has damaged the economy, not me. The onus is on you to prove that. Now you're trying to handball a claim you've made back to me because you can't prove your claim and have been found wanting. Sorry, Gnome it doesn't work like that. You're making the claim, the onus is on you. ^ No good! This is no evidence to prove your counter claim that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has. Not at all. It is just argumentative prattle. Try again. Come back to me if you find one and I'll advise you if it's good evidence or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 15, 2023 20:40:30 GMT
You've had loads of evidence that Brexit has and is harming the economy. You might be able to argue that the long term will outweigh the short term but there's been no evidence of a credible mechanism positioned to back that. It's your pyrrhic victory. No proof. You even admitted it yourself. The best you have is correlation and we all know that isn't proof. Unlucky. Do you really not know the difference between evidence, proof and probability? But yes 'unlucky' is a good word to describe Brexit. It's been very unlucky for most Brits to have to have it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 15, 2023 22:42:20 GMT
No good! This is no evidence to prove your counter claim that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has. Not at all. It is just argumentative prattle. well you can say what you like but unless you have evidence to support your assertions it's just flapping your gums. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 16, 2023 7:51:09 GMT
Gnome hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He can't even get the words right - he talks about hypotheses when he means theories for example, which are a completely different thing. Actually hypotheses are accurate in his case, in that they're simply assumptions that are made for the sake of an argument, but I don't think he/she means that.
On the GFC, first of all there wasn't a Global Financial Crisis. Many countries never had a financial crisis, and, of the countries that DID have problems, there were often very different reasons for the financial problems. For example the UK's (and USA's) financial crises were caused by governments removing controls on credit in order to stimulate the economy. When people couldn't repay their loans the banks were in trouble - which was entirely predictable, but not to Brown apparently.
In the case of the EU the financial problems were entirely different - it was a euro crisis. It was a problem caused by having the same borrowing rate for countries with entirely different economies. For example the natural base rate for Greece (and Italy) was much higher than for Germany. So the (again inevitable) problem eventually meant that the governments got into financial trouble. In the case of Greece it was terminal and there is absolutely NO chance that Greece will ever recover and unemployment has soared and people have lost their pensions and savings - and several other countries are still in trouble.
If we had been in the Eurozone we would also be a basket case. But because we had our own currency we simply got the BoE to print about £375 billion and we managed to get through our problems with scarcely any rise in unemployment. We didn't even get much inflation surprisingly. Which approach does Gnome prefer? Amusingly the EU has belatedly printed vast amounts of QE but it was too late - the damage had been done.
As for the nonsense about Brexit causing financial problems of one kind or another it's VERY difficult to separate the effects of Brexit from the MUCH larger effects of the pandemic and the measures taken to cope with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 16, 2023 8:19:42 GMT
No proof. You even admitted it yourself. The best you have is correlation and we all know that isn't proof. Unlucky. Do you really not know the difference between evidence, proof and probability? But yes 'unlucky' is a good word to describe Brexit. It's been very unlucky for most Brits to have to have it. Fact is you and Gnome cannot prove Brexit has been bad for the economy. Given that the pair of you tell all and sundry otherwise, you'd have thought you could have backed that up with proof. And no offence, there won't be many people foolish enough to take either of you on your say so. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 16, 2023 8:33:07 GMT
So you admit that although you speak as though the UK would still be struggling to return to pre-GFC in 2023 if it weren't in the EU as fact, with your high modality statements, you've just made this up on nothing other than agenda because it isn't perfectly justifiable and highly probable because you have no justification for it other than an agenda. Glad we cleared that up. You are the one claiming Brexit has damaged the economy, not me. The onus is on you to prove that. Now you're trying to handball a claim you've made back to me because you can't prove your claim and have been found wanting. Sorry, Gnome it doesn't work like that. You're making the claim, the onus is on you. ^ No good! This is no evidence to prove your counter claim that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has. Not at all. It is just argumentative prattle. Try again. Come back to me if you find one and I'll advise you if it's good evidence or not. Sorry Gnome, you've stepped into troll territory with your burden of proof fallacy. With this, you're tacitly admitting to me that you've yet again failed in debate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 10:51:04 GMT
^ No good! This is no evidence to prove your counter claim that Brexit has not reduced all that I say it has. Not at all. It is just argumentative prattle. Try again. Come back to me if you find one and I'll advise you if it's good evidence or not. Sorry Gnome, you've stepped into troll territory with your burden of proof fallacy. With this, you're tacitly admitting to me that you've yet again failed in debate. You're the poster who has this unattractive habit of posting flimsy assertions, conjectures and grand meaningless pronouncements but can't defend them when called out and so has to resort to going around in a circle demanding hard evidence. You don't even know how to distinguish between evidence and proof! Please. Your idea of winning a debate is when you demand "hard evidence" from posters who successfully refute your grand, no-evidence, no-facts, hypothetical issues. I don't even debate you. I correct your mistakes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 11:04:20 GMT
Gnome hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He can't even get the words right - he talks about hypotheses when he means theories for example, which are a completely different thing. Actually hypotheses are accurate in his case, in that they're simply assumptions that are made for the sake of an argument, but I don't think he/she means that. On the GFC, first of all there wasn't a Global Financial Crisis. Many countries never had a financial crisis, and, of the countries that DID have problems, there were often very different reasons for the financial problems. For example the UK's (and USA's) financial crises were caused by governments removing controls on credit in order to stimulate the economy. When people couldn't repay their loans the banks were in trouble - which was entirely predictable, but not to Brown apparently. In the case of the EU the financial problems were entirely different - it was a euro crisis. It was a problem caused by having the same borrowing rate for countries with entirely different economies. For example the natural base rate for Greece (and Italy) was much higher than for Germany. So the (again inevitable) problem eventually meant that the governments got into financial trouble. In the case of Greece it was terminal and there is absolutely NO chance that Greece will ever recover and unemployment has soared and people have lost their pensions and savings - and several other countries are still in trouble. If we had been in the Eurozone we would also be a basket case. But because we had our own currency we simply got the BoE to print about £375 billion and we managed to get through our problems with scarcely any rise in unemployment. We didn't even get much inflation surprisingly. Which approach does Gnome prefer? Amusingly the EU has belatedly printed vast amounts of QE but it was too late - the damage had been done. As for the nonsense about Brexit causing financial problems of one kind or another it's VERY difficult to separate the effects of Brexit from the MUCH larger effects of the pandemic and the measures taken to cope with it. So, you want me to say "theories" rather than "hypotheses"? Fine. "Theories", then. When you say "global" it does not have to include every single country on the planet. And when a crisis is about banking and finance -- no matter what the root cause is -- it is called a financial crisis. Still, I won't stop you from presenting us with your own analyses of what happened. Paris stock market is now larger than London's in terms of valuation. If you believe it happened because the global pandemic and the Ukraine war somehow skipped Paris, then, you really are hopeless,. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 16, 2023 11:14:52 GMT
Sorry Gnome, you've stepped into troll territory with your burden of proof fallacy. With this, you're tacitly admitting to me that you've yet again failed in debate. You're the poster who has this unattractive habit of posting flimsy assertions, conjectures and grand meaningless pronouncements but can't defend them when called out and so has to resort to going around in a circle demanding hard evidence. You don't even know how to distinguish between evidence and proof! Please. Your idea of winning a debate is when you demand "hard evidence" from posters who successfully refute your grand, no-evidence, no-facts, hypothetical issues. I don't even debate you. I correct your mistakes. You haven't done anything successfully, Gnome. Apart from embarrass yourself on this forum. But thank-you once again for proving my point that your claims are void of proof and therefore you tacitly admit that you're wrong on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 16, 2023 11:15:05 GMT
Gnome hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He can't even get the words right - he talks about hypotheses when he means theories for example, which are a completely different thing. Actually hypotheses are accurate in his case, in that they're simply assumptions that are made for the sake of an argument, but I don't think he/she means that. On the GFC, first of all there wasn't a Global Financial Crisis. Many countries never had a financial crisis, and, of the countries that DID have problems, there were often very different reasons for the financial problems. For example the UK's (and USA's) financial crises were caused by governments removing controls on credit in order to stimulate the economy. When people couldn't repay their loans the banks were in trouble - which was entirely predictable, but not to Brown apparently. In the case of the EU the financial problems were entirely different - it was a euro crisis. It was a problem caused by having the same borrowing rate for countries with entirely different economies. For example the natural base rate for Greece (and Italy) was much higher than for Germany. So the (again inevitable) problem eventually meant that the governments got into financial trouble. In the case of Greece it was terminal and there is absolutely NO chance that Greece will ever recover and unemployment has soared and people have lost their pensions and savings - and several other countries are still in trouble. If we had been in the Eurozone we would also be a basket case. But because we had our own currency we simply got the BoE to print about £375 billion and we managed to get through our problems with scarcely any rise in unemployment. We didn't even get much inflation surprisingly. Which approach does Gnome prefer? Amusingly the EU has belatedly printed vast amounts of QE but it was too late - the damage had been done. As for the nonsense about Brexit causing financial problems of one kind or another it's VERY difficult to separate the effects of Brexit from the MUCH larger effects of the pandemic and the measures taken to cope with it. So, you want me to say "theories" rather than "hypotheses" Fine. "Theories", then. When you say "global" it does not have to include every single country on the planet. And when a crisis is about banking and finance -- no matter what the root cause is -- it is called a financial crisis. Still, I won't stop you from presenting us with your own analyses of what happened. Paris stock market is now larger than London's in terms of valuation. If you believe it happened because the global pandemic and the Ukraine war somehow skipped Paris, then, you really are hopeless,. Do you know all the reasons for that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 12:38:13 GMT
You're the poster who has this unattractive habit of posting flimsy assertions, conjectures and grand meaningless pronouncements but can't defend them when called out and so has to resort to going around in a circle demanding hard evidence. You don't even know how to distinguish between evidence and proof! Please. Your idea of winning a debate is when you demand "hard evidence" from posters who successfully refute your grand, no-evidence, no-facts, hypothetical issues. I don't even debate you. I correct your mistakes. You haven't done anything successfully, Gnome. Apart from embarrass yourself on this forum. But thank-you once again for proving my point that your claims are void of proof and therefore you tacitly admit that you're wrong on this. Say whatever you want, but the fact remains that you are unable and have not been able to refute any of my or any other poster's arguments successfully. All you do and all you've been doing is go back to your default mode of defence -- ask for "hard evidence" and then double down on it when you yourself get called out to provide substance and evidence to support your own claims. You have no point. All you have is the need to say something. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 16, 2023 12:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 16, 2023 13:18:34 GMT
Do you really not know the difference between evidence, proof and probability? But yes 'unlucky' is a good word to describe Brexit. It's been very unlucky for most Brits to have to have it. Fact is you and Gnome cannot prove Brexit has been bad for the economy. Given that the pair of you tell all and sundry otherwise, you'd have thought you could have backed that up with proof. And no offence, there won't be many people foolish enough to take either of you on your say so. Says the poster who cannot show one benefit I or the country taken as a whole has had. Yet I can show the fall in the £, the real terms impact it had on households, the NI issues, the difficulties for small businesses, the hit to investment, the hit to GDP, the difficulties to UK fishing, the NHS staff shortages etc etc But like that idiot black knight in the Python film no doubt you'll continue in denial. 'Pyrrhic' look it up. Buccaneer's view of why Brexit is a success ![]()  ![]() |
|
Anyway, No and No to your questions. It is idiotic to ask for hard evidence when the context given is hypothetical. Isn't it? And as far as hypotheses go, what I've given you is perfectly justifiable and highly probable. You want to disprove it? Fine, knock yourself out. I'll even watch you try -- and fail.
