It was rejected on the basis of who commissioned it and who paid for it.
Give me enough money and I’d write a report on something happening that could never be disproved.
He’d be better spending the money on the rising knife crime in London:
Liz Truss. She destroyed the UK. Absolutely destroyed the economy.
That is not true. You have never done so for free right here. You have made endless attempts.
Money won’t make your arguments any better.
1 Like
years ago before labour took power.
The money currently being spent to open factories is worth every pound of it.
Send me some money and see the result 
But the debt growth is higher, and even if deficits hit zero (of current spending), if the interest rate is higher than the GDP growth rate, the debt still grows faster than GDP (because 4% of $36T is more than 3% of $27T). Heck, even if interest rates were to drop from ~4% to 2.5%, the debt growth will still outpace GDP growth (2.5% of $36T is more than 3% of $27T).
1 Like
Taxes on the rich need to be higher.
But I am going to enjoy the next four years. Assuming my video game does well. Even a small market would be a very good return.
This is a message board. You should expect people who read it to, well, have opinions. Perhaps even to post them.
This is not a new concept.
7 Likes
Germany also has shot itself in its economic foot, though with a different gun (really pushing this metaphor).
Ukraine and Russian sanctions created an energy shortage that Germany responded to by shutting down its nuclear plants. German companies made big investments in marketing BEVs that Germany responded to by abruptly ending EV subsidies to collapse the domestic market. This at the same time German car company sales in China collapsed because they are so far behind in EV tech.
Germany made multiple mistakes.
The UK made one huge mistake—Brexit. The negative impact of Brexit was predicted and you have documented in your OP that it occurred.
Also note that UK debt is about 100% of it GDP. In Germany that metric is about 60%. No doubt Germany could outperform the UK if it wanted to deficit spend at the same level.
1 Like
Interestingly, Bloomburg worked out that Brexit cost us £100 billion, but, from what i remember this was based on a massive increase in foreigners workers coming to the UK.
Nope. It was speculated as resulting from reduced business investment and a worker shortage resulting from 370,000 fewer EU workers.
3 Likes
That doesn’t make sense as migration has soared in the UK in the last two/three years:
Net migration was unusually high in the year ending June 2024, driven primarily by high demand for workers in the health and care sector and an increase in international student numbers
In the last two years, estimated immigration to the UK was approximately 2.5 million
I can’t find the link but I have heard that we are looking at another 2.5 million in the next two years.
If being in the EU would increase the above figures then heaven help us!
LOL, your reply to me makes no sense. I shared the same objection to the OP as you did.
2 Likes
Temporary post-covid blip. Work visa numbers indicate a sharp decline in immigration going forward with an increase in emigration. As immigrants are made to feel less welcome, the huge influx of foreign students trained in the UK and who are keeping UK universities from financial ruin are expected to leave in higher numbers. All part of a general “brain drain” of UK grads who plan to leave for the EU, with Spain, Portugal, and Italy top of the list: Billionaire Warns of UK Brain Drain as 38% of Brits Under 35 Plan To Leave in the Next 5 Years | IBTimes UK
This will probably help with the housing shortage but hurt the economy. Expectations are that with reduced migration the debt will increase.
OBR also observed that a ‘low migration’ scenario would – even after taking account of reduced pressures on public spending – push up borrowing by about £14 billion per year in 2028-29, considerably more than the cost of a 2p cut in National Insurance contributions, and raise the debt to GDP ratio – the government’s key fiscal target – by about 2.5%, or about £75 billion.
Immigration is falling but the economic cost may be high - UK in a changing Europe
That’s because all those immigrants paid more taxes than they used in public services. Also, those immigrants helped alleviate work shortages in UK tech and health care and social care. Expect longer NHS wait times as migration declines and if you are old, Good Luck!.
But at least there will be a lot fewer foreigners. Yippee!
3 Likes
Don’t know about the UK, but in the Netherlands the net cost is negative for many immigrants. From the University of Amsterdam School of Economics:
Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration for Public Finances
van de Beek et al.
From Table 0.2, Average net contribution of immigrants to public finances, by immigration motive and region, including the cost for the second generation
Labor immigration from Japan, North America & Oceania 625K euro Asylum immigration from Africa - 625K Study immigration from EU 75K Study immigration from Africa - 250K
“If immigration remains at the 2015-2019 level in terms of size and cost-benefit structure, the annual budget burden will gradually increase from 17 billion euros in 2016 to about 50 billion euros per year in the long run, a threefold increase that the welfare state most likely wouldn’t survive.”
DB2
I think what you are missing is that the EU immigrant is generally different from the nonEU immigrant. The EU immigrant preBrexit was mostly likely recruited by UK companies to work, taking advantage of the free movement of workers.
The nonEU immigrant was primarily coming to go to school, join family or for jobs in health care or social services.
This difference means there is a work shortage in a lot of UK industries that didn’t exist preBrexit.
One in thirty people walking the streets of the UK came here in the last two/three years.
14% of the UK’s population is foreign born:
Our GDP has stagnated:
The UK economy remained stagnant in the third quarter of the year, with the quarter-on-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate coming in at 0%, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Per capita GDP has declined!
As the facts show, Brexit was a huge economic mistake. Per capita GDP would have been worse without immigration.
Sure. But it’s similar to a startup and capex investment. Most of the time the initial investment into a business doesn’t pay off for a good number of years. This is why businesses often do not declare a financial profit for many years after startup (because they are taking depreciation of all the startup costs). Immigration is similar in that respect, the first few generations are a cost, but thereafter become a gain, and likely gain that compounds forever.
And there is another issue that has to be taken into account. If you don’t welcome immigration, and you don’t produce your own new humans, what happens over time? You shrink and maybe even eventually disappear … that’s what happens. That’s what’s happening to Japan, for example.
3 Likes