Still on Brexit (then stop)!
I don't know why, the Brexit theme continues to fascinate: yet I thought I had liquidated it seven years ago !
If to a "professor, chennepenZa?" can be answered with a simple "click" (the neologism we invented here to define the operation of blocking a petulant user "with a click of the mouse", by assonance with that other category of petulants that "money is created with a click of the mouse": but this can only be remembered by those who have been here for at least a decade…), to a flood of "professor, chennepenZa?" perhaps a more detailed answer should be given, if it weren't for the fact that every now and then this question comes from qualified users, such as the Dutch girl , or my landlady in Chieti, or our (former) landlord in Montesilvano , which if not elsewhere are still in our hearts: suppressing them would cost us more than wasting a couple of hours of time!
I would add that if something so simple, and which we have explained a thousand times , is not understood, evidently there is something deeper wrong.
A hint of what is perhaps wrong, and which you could certainly improve, is in the way many approach me: "But Alberto, what about Brexit? The newspapers say it is a disaster, according to them England has sunk in the Atlantic…" [Scotland not because it is "European" , Wales not because everyone forgets it NdCN ]
Now, if after twelve years you have not understood that the answer to such a question is in the question, I am afraid there is very little I can do for you. All the work we've done here has had a common thread that I hoped was evident: showing you how the media assiduously and systematically distort factual truth, how they are a compass that continually and infallibly points to the South.
If a newspaper says "white!", you can be sure it will be black.
If a newspaper says "up!", you can be sure it will be down.
If a newspaper says "It's growing!", you can be sure it's going down.
Do I have to recite the whole dictionary of opposites, or do we settle it here?
Perhaps it is more useful if I remind you of a few posts where I have refuted the slight inaccuracies of the media: here , here , here , here , etc. (just click on the "propaganda" tag and you can find as many as you want, maybe more useful than the ones I mentioned).
This means that if the media say that Brexit was a disaster, obviously Brexit will not have been: moreover, I told you before, and I showed you later, why it wouldn't be and why it wasn't.
Before letting you review it, however, I would like to close on the issue of the systematic distortion of reality operated by the media.
Journalists are not "bad": in most cases they are simply ignorant, which means, concretely, that they would not know where to download or how to read the data that I will provide below. Poverty is not shame: if you have a degree in literature, you are naturally less familiar with the data than an econometrics professor. So the problem is not you, but who put you where you are, and this is what we should ask ourselves about…
Journalists are not "intellectually dishonest": in most cases they are simply in a hurry, which concretely means that if they never provide you with the sources of their data, as I will when I show you mine, they are not doing it for prevent you from checking them, but because citing sources costs time.
Journalists are not "paid by Klaus Schwab" (or by another "villain" of the conspiracy puppet theater: Gates, Soros, Satana, whoever…): in most cases they are simply underpaid by their newspapers, which means , concretely, that if they repeat the slogans that arrive from international think tanks it is not because they arrive accompanied by a large check, but because to make a living for the family perhaps they have to do more than one job, and therefore find it more efficient to copy instead of going deeper. It is true that copying is in any case a job with low added value (and in the case of the media with a high added negative value), so I wouldn't be too pityed if the right amount is paid, that is, little: but this is another matter. ..
So how to say: nothing personal.
They are poor things too, and poor things are dangerous . However, the problem is objective and political, not subjective and personal, and whoever approaches it in this last way is wrong. It may be that a journalist is an imbecile, as it may be that a reader is. Courtesy wants us to hide this unpleasant truth from both of us, rather than throw it in their faces, and in any case posing the problem in these terms does not advance us one step towards solving the problem: obtaining a correct, informed press and pluralist. We can console ourselves by telling ourselves that the problem is insoluble, that this solution is unattainable, and probably it is, but we certainly have no right to complain about it if we adopt solutions that aggravate the problem, that distance us from the solution.
A much better solution than that, which I advise against, of insulting journalists, or even, more politely, of complaining about them, is that, which I recommend, of totally ignoring them, going to read, instead of the newspapers every day, the data every quarter . I've always done this, and this allows me to surf with ease in the nice parterres to which I am commanded by my press office, while ignoring with equal ease the ten press reviews that are inflicted on me every morning! Current events, as we have always said to each other here, are greatly overrated: the more interesting it is to put things in perspective, and this is what I propose to you below.
(… in my capacity as a politician, ignoring journalists doesn't just mean not reading them: it also means considering them transparent, not seeing them, not talking to them, not answering the phone, going through their inconsistency! I'm tired of being misrepresented and I adjust accordingly …)
But, well, let's get started…
The gross domestic product
The scenarios prior to Brexit attributed to the latter a rather conspicuous loss of gross domestic product in the following years (from 2017 onwards). On 23 June 2016 I was at Villa Mondragone for the usual seminars organized by Luigi Paganetto, where I was able to enjoy the presentation of this interesting essay , according to which the long-term effects of Brexit on the UK's GDP, in the assessments provided by various research centres, ranged from +1% to -25% (with a certain consensus for values around -6% over the 2020 horizon). I told you about it at the time here .
Now: before looking at the data, I would like you to reflect on a methodological issue.
The evaluation of counterfactual scenarios suffers from an obvious problem: the more the time horizon lengthens, the more the failure of the scenario, the denial of the forecasts, can be justified by attaching confounding factors, unforeseeable at the time in which the scenario was evaluated. I'll tell you another way: as Roger Bootle reminded us with amiable irony at #goofy10 , seven years is definitely not enough to take stock (five was even less!). My educated guess is that Monti's austerity will remain a scar in the history of our GDP for the long centuries to come, as it already appears today, so much so that from the ISTAT website they have removed the secular series which for a certain period they had put on the home page , namely this:
(you can find it on the Banca d'Italia website ), perhaps because it is politically annoying, and they replaced it with a more encouraging (so to speak) quarterly series from 1996:
Conversely, I would wager that Brexit will not even be visible as a glitch in the UK's GDP secular series, because a necessary condition for something to be seen in the long run is that it be seen in the short term, and in the short term it is not seen!
The most natural way to set up a comparison would be to go to the Eurostat website and download the data, but if you try you will get this:
Unfortunately, the UK's historical series are interrupted in 2020, perhaps because the enlightened European Eurostat technician wants to avoid the vertigo of looking out over the abyss in which the UK has sunk (the table can be found here ).
I open and close a parenthesis: I know that "you left and so I won't publish your data gnè gnè gnè" makes you laugh, but I would like to point out that the decision to consider the tax credits generated by the 110% debit (thus triggering a speculative attack against our country) is in the hands of such big kids. Not much to laugh about…
Bold and stubborn we therefore turn to the OECD, certain that Anglo-Saxon pragmatism will help us in our crazy attempt to certify the end of the new Atlantis. The site is this , and you have to go and look for the data in this point of the menu:
(I have to put the sticker where to look for them because unlike Eurostat the OECD does not allow you to generate a bookmark that points to the result of a specific search).
I offer you two visions of the same phenomenon (GDP):
- the real GDP index (base 2015 = 100);
- real per capita GDP expressed in a common currency (dollars) and purchasing power parity
(concept eviscerated by describing the wonderful world of Lampredotto ).
The 2015 based real GDP index = 100 for the "big four" Eurozone and the UK has this trend:
Obviously the ignorant (our dear friend Serendippo on Twitter, for example) will rush to say: "Did you see? Witness your mind! Spain and France fared better than the United Kingdom, at the end of the graph they surpass it! Breeeeeeexit disaster!" . But this means not knowing what an index is and what we need it for. We need an index to evaluate the growth of an economic variable. Where it is at any given moment in time makes no sense. For example, the fact that the five series shown in the graph all cross in 2015 does not mean that France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom had the same GDP in that year: it only means that the OECD adopts 2015 as the year of reference. What matters, of the index, is how much it has grown in the interval considered, and naturally it has grown more either who arrives higher at the end of the period, or who starts from lower at the beginning of the period. For example, since the UK, like Germany, started from around 90, the fact that it reaches around 107 means that it has grown much more than Spain, which started from 100. In fact, to have a more effective view, it is enough to rebase the index at the beginning of the period, going to see what happens, the GDP of the first quarter of 2010 is equal to 100.
This happens:
That is, it happens that in the period 2010-2022 the United Kingdom, after an initial delay, keeps pace with Germany and even surpasses it after the shock of the pandemic, while Spain and Italy, prostrated by austerity, remain very, very backwards.
In 2016 we see nothing comparable to what happens in 2011 in Italy (and 2010 in Spain). The confounding factor determined by the pandemic does not alter this situation in the slightest.
To deepen this analysis, we use a different measure, which lends itself more to international comparisons: per capita GDP expressed in a common currency (the dollar) but with an exchange rate that takes into account the different purchasing power of monetary wages in the different countries (the exchange rate at purchasing power parity). The data are these:
and taken like this they tell us that the United Kingdom was and remained the second country for GDP per capita, just as Italy, in the group considered, was and remained the fourth. You also see other details we talked about (for example, that the post-pandemic recovery was faster in Italy than in Germany), while you don't see the problems caused by Brexit. To the refined analyst idiot who in 2016 claimed that in the event of Brexit, British GDP would drop by 25% in the long run, I would like to point out that since we are in that world there (there was Brexit) his bullshit refined analysis implies that today UK GDP per capita in the baseline scenario (i.e. in the absence of Brexit) should exceed that of Germany… This doesn't seem like a plausible scenario in hindsight because it didn't seem like a plausible scenario in hindsight. Besides, it wouldn't have seemed like it to him either! If we had asked the refined analyst jerk : "Do you think the UK will overtake Germany in GDP per capita?" (without mentioning Brexit), the answer would have been: "Certainly not!"
Here too, however, expressing data with a base of 100 at the beginning of the period helps us to better identify the growth dynamics of individual countries:
It reconfirms that austerity, unlike power, wears down those who have it, and that leaving the EU has no visible impact on the UK's quarterly GDP series. We can also see the annual growth rates of real GDP, to do something less original and accurate (and already done on Twitter):
I'd say that's okay, right? We can rest assured: for now the UK has not sunk by either 6% or 25%, and has pulled out of COVID less badly than others. So let's move on.
Unemployment (sic)
He says: "Oh well, I'm rich all the same, but it's because there is disguajanza and unemployment…"
I don't know about you, but I 'm pissed off, I feel uncomfortable reading certain hasty and superficial analyses. Let's start with the least controversial concept, i.e. one of more immediate measurement: that of unemployment. The data are these:
In 2016 in Great Britain it was 4.89%, today it is 3.74%, we are between 8% and 9%, Spain, often cited as enfant prodige (which does not mean prodigal son) is still bricked up above 12 %…
But what exactly are we talking about?
Ah, sure: maybe the whole island didn't sink: it tilted a bit and only the people seeking employment drowned. Otherwise it can't be explained (or it can be explained with a "go and give away the ciàp…").
Poverty
Well, let's talk about this too. The friendly Eurotes, as you have seen, do not inform us about recent developments:
The only thing we can say by consulting the Eurostat website is that in the United Kingdom the percentage of the population at risk of poverty and social exclusion was higher before than in the two years following Brexit, and was in any case considerably lower than in Italy or Spain (therefore perhaps a little look at our house could be suggested to our information…).
On the OECD website we find the poverty rates:
which tell us a similar story (note how the German series modestly stops in 2019 and the Italian one in 2018).
So exactly what the fuck are we talking about? Of the shortage of Marmite ? But please…
(… incidentally, to those who feel offended by the strengthening just introduced, I point out that according to the Cassation it can be used, or at least you do use it . ..)
The breakdown of accounts with foreign countries
Excerpt! How can a country live without importing German cars? Well, the data tells us that he lives better, with a smaller external deficit:
From -5% in 2015, the United Kingdom moved to an external balance of -1.50% in 2021, and this, note well, usually growing more than the other countries considered (and therefore, it is assumed, importing more). Conversely, Germany fell from 8.61% to 7.39% (in 2021, but then with the energy crisis it went below zero).
Details
Oh yes, because then there would also be this detail, if you want:
He says, does, says: "But why Germany isn't on this table?" Answer: "Because Germany doesn't have oil. England does."
Curtain.
(… moreover, this shouldn't be big news for you: I have explained to you far and wide how and why the destinies of the two lire, the Italian one and the pound one, separated when the United Kingdom sent its oil wells are in production : we have always known that energy is important here, just as we have always known that its competitive advantage, Germany, has paid for it with coal, that is, by polluting Northern Europe and being destroyed by acid rain to defeat his hated enemies of all time …)
(… you …)
A failed country?
Now you have seen the numbers, indeed: revised. Does that mean you won't ask me again? No, you will ask me for them. Because? Why can't you ignore the fucking media. my problem? No, your problem, but since we're friends, you sometimes make me tender.
After that, let's take the story of the newspapers for granted. Sometimes, defending, or at least taking for granted, the opponent's thesis, is an effective rhetorical device, as this hilarious and bitter video has illustrated to us . So yes, Britain is a failed country! Favored by climate change , hordes of locusts scourge it, exterminating its crops. The exit from the EU has stained it with an irreparable stigma, to such an extent that the other countries of the civilized assembly refuse to trade with it, and those of the uncivilized assembly have nothing to sell to it, so that in its supermarkets the shelves are dishearteningly empty (as the news circulate in our heads by feeding us archive images shot in Baghdad or Pyongyang): exhausted by hunger, people abandon themselves to the brutality of cannibalism, while the Markets, animated by the sacred moralistic fury that pervades them, litter their puppet governments.
All right and all true, good like this, a round of applause for the journalists.
However, a small question follows, the one that was posed to me a few days ago by a Commission official whose name I cannot name for obvious reasons: how come then the great and powerful Europona on such a delicate issue as that of the conflict currently underway at our doors, has so far been totally subordinate to the line dictated by US-UK?
Let's be clear: here I am not interested in assessing the merits of this line. History will tell whether it's right or wrong: let's leave it to the winners the welcome task of writing it, and to the experts of #aaaaaggeobolidiga the very welcome task of trying to anticipate it. My reflection is much more down-to-earth: if it is true that UK is a failed country, then EU, which UK fulfills in foreign policy, what is it? A failed project, "I would say" (cit.). After all, that the "economic giant" (but…) is a "political dwarf" someone else had already said a long time ago, that the French intention not to abandon Germany to the seductions of the East is belied by the facts we see it with our own eyes, etc. etc.
But maybe that's not the case: while the UK is a failed country, the data don't show it. Obviously, that EU is a failed project, I have not said it and I have never even thought about it (right? Don't be malicious and don't spread tendentious rumors!).
So let everyone enjoy their truths, let everyone, starting with the Democratic Party, enjoy the world they have so strongly desired, and if we have any doubts, we go to stats.oecd.org . And above all, with your permission, we let the pen-makers talk about Brexit. We have more serious and problematic topics to deal with, and we will come back to them soon, because this reasoning is missing a little piece …
(… Me: "But how did I once write page after page after page? Now I'm having a crazy effort!" Her: "You are recovering from narcissism." Me: "I have to find someone who infects me!"… )
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2023/01/ancora-sulla-brexit-poi-basta.html on Sun, 22 Jan 2023 20:16:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.