The Donald Trump thread

[the other bob wilson]

It was always going to end in tears.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrgx4ky1xxo

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5583124]

I know it was from Dorcus 🤷.

The point is the disgraceful riots were a complex and toxic mix of various issues, one of which and the motivation for many was indeed racial hatred. These things never have a single cause though. This is the case for nearly every riot going. There is a spark, but the causes, motivation and ingredients are never solely one thing. That's the case for every riot going, and is absolutely the same with the riots in 2011for example, the ones in Swansea a couple of years ago, the BLM ones in America, all of them. Not everyone involved in 2011 did so out of solidarity with Mark Duggan and not everyone involved last summer did so due to racial hatred. Huge factor? Yes. Biggest factor? Probably. Sole factor? Nope.
You must have seen some trouble at football before to know about group mentality?

If you can find a reputable source that says there is only one cause and all rioters and all those arrested shared the same views then please share it.

https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/news...agedy-uk-riots

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-caused-...ts-in-britain/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-young-people

You are an arsehole and an apologist for trump , farage and the right

You havnt watched the link I posted and you wouldn't if I glued your eyes open because it would show you up

And your ego won't allow that

Your laughable use of academic excuses , once again over egged with regard to racists setting hotels on fire puts you in the dock yet again

The footage is damning ....but you need to watch it .....and that's not in your plans as you would end up having to admit you are sometimes wrong

You are as bad as them so shove your fake intelligent nonsense

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5583124]

I know it was from Dorcus 🤷.

The point is the disgraceful riots were a complex and toxic mix of various issues, one of which and the motivation for many was indeed racial hatred. These things never have a single cause though. This is the case for nearly every riot going. There is a spark, but the causes, motivation and ingredients are never solely one thing. That's the case for every riot going, and is absolutely the same with the riots in 2011for example, the ones in Swansea a couple of years ago, the BLM ones in America, all of them. Not everyone involved in 2011 did so out of solidarity with Mark Duggan and not everyone involved last summer did so due to racial hatred. Huge factor? Yes. Biggest factor? Probably. Sole factor? Nope.
You must have seen some trouble at football before to know about group mentality?

If you can find a reputable source that says there is only one cause and all rioters and all those arrested shared the same views then please share it.

https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/news...agedy-uk-riots

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-caused-...ts-in-britain/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-young-people

Watch it you sad case

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I can read facts and place a greater importance on them rather than theoretical models.

You can say "Brexit is an unmitigated disaster" and produce only a model.

But if you look at facts, of the economy as a whole, the evidence absolutely does not back up your very hyperbolic statement. It just doesn't.

An expert in football will have an opinion on the outcome of the afternoons games. It doesn't counter the actual results come 5pm though. That's the problem (aside from the general anger and insults) with what you are saying. Your summary is only valid by completely ignoring real data on GDP, unemployment, markets, wages, inflation, all the usual key metrics.

I have taken the time to post this on numerous occasions but you just don't respond to it and if you do it's an angry insult.

What a sanctimonious bore

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Apples are not oranges, you twit. Apparently, you know more than the OBR: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/th...s/#assumptions

He knows everything

In a sort of he is good on Google

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

[QUOTE=az city;5583371]

You don't need a PhD to know that facts are worth more than a theory or model.

If your statement were true (and it isn't) it would bare fruit in the display of key economic data.

But you never produce that. When asked you play another one of your ad hominem attack cards.

You can pity me all you like. I'm not the one making outlandish statements and then abusing people for having a different opinion on an internet forum.[/QUOTE

Direct from the OBR in 2025

"Specifically, our latest economy forecast assumes that:

The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information).
Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The size of this adjustment is calibrated to match the average estimate of a number of external studies that considered the impact of leaving the EU on the volume of UK-EU trade (see our November 2016 EFO for more information). Impacts on export and import growth are similar, therefore downward revisions to gross trade flows are broadly neutral in their effect on the current account over the medium term. Box 2.5 of our October 2021 EFO and Box 2.6 of our March 2022 EFO provide initial assessments of this assumption.
New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment).
We had assumed that the Government’s new post-Brexit migration regime would reduce net inward migration to the UK, settling at 129,000 a year in the medium-term, based on the ONS ‘zero net EU migration variant’ of the 2018-based population projections (see Box 2.4 of our March 2020 EFO). We have since revised up our projections for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 315,000 a year in the medium term, based on the ONS 2021-based interim population projections (see Box 2.3 of our March 2024 EFO). This compares to 245,000 in our November 2023 forecast, which was based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projections."

You'll note they aren't doing cross sectional comparisons as is YOUR erroneous want.

He's gone missing on this one

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Sorry sir, I'll get my full analysis on your desk by Monday, seriously?

Trade was massively talked about before Brexit, none of the promises of the leave campaign came true, all of the obvious effects of increasing barriers to trade came true and this thread is about Donald Trump who has just decided to scattergun tariffs (barriers to trade) around the world. Yeah I just can't think why I am focusing on trade?

'the reality is that on some key metrics we have outperformed our peers, and on some we haven't'

Seriously do you not get it yet after being told 15 million times in 15 million different threads? The success of Brexit isn't decided by us outperforming our peers, it is decided by us outperforming where we would have been if we hadn't left the EU.

Every independent authority who has done serious economic analysis of Brexit says one thing, we are worse off economically than we would have been. But it's okay because we did it for the benefits, which I am sure are just round the corner.

You are engaging with JW

Who really is wasted on here and should be heading one of the world's leading banks or economic institutions

If not running the entire world such is his knowledge

I am surprised he hasn't been head hunted yet

[JamesWales]

AZ copied and pasted an OBR report on here to back up his conclusion that Brexit is "an unmitigated disaster", with no sense of irony posted a day or two after we had tariffs slapped on us that are half those of the EU, but we'll leave that one lie.

The OBR report makes assumptions on what trade with the EU would have been over the last few years since we left. Since then of course we've had a psnd

[JamesWales]

..pandemic (a week or two after we left), and a war in Europe. The assumptions on pretty much every aspect of every countries economy is not easy to do in those circumstances. The same OBR recently cut their growth prediction for this just a few months after their last prediction for the 2024 budget. Their predictions are not gospel and any long term model is riven by even greater uncertainty.

But that's not to say it's not valid. Of course it is. But what it doesn't do is override other key economic facts, on matters such as GDP, wages, inflation, FTSE performance and the like. If you want to come to a rounded conclusion then you absolutely consider those factors too. The EU isnt just a trade body. If it was then such an approach may have more merit, but we were asked to vote on the consideration of a very diverse range of factors (see here for some of the economic ones https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics...endum-36355564 ) and so it is only right than an assessment of the impact considers these too.

Basing a rather bombastic statement on a prediction on one part of the economy and ignoring facts on other far more holistic metrics is discontinuous and illogical. If a big economic change were an "unmitigated disaster" then it would show up in GDP, wages, inflation, stock markets, house prices, unemployment and the like, and is easily assessed against those who didn't go through that change.

If the impact basically leads to the same level of growth Vs our peers, slightly lower unemployment, similar inflation, slightly better wage growth, similar stock market performance etc etc then the impact is highly unlikely to be "an unmitigated disaster". Unhelpful? Maybe. Disruptive? Probably? Mixed results? Sure. What was promised? Definitely not so far. Unmitigated disaster? Absolutely not.

[delmbox]

Where you been mate I've missed you.

By the way, I saw it on the DC Draino feed 👍

Special guest appearance

Enjoy your holiday!

[JamesWales]

[QUOTE=SLUDGE FACTORY;5583408]

You are an arsehole and an apologist for trump , farage and the right

You havnt watched the link I posted and you wouldn't if I glued your eyes open because it would show you up

And your ego won't allow that

Your laughable use of academic excuses , once again over egged with regard to racists setting hotels on fire puts you in the dock yet again

The footage is damning ....but you need to watch it .....and that's not in your plans as you would end up having to admit you are sometimes wrong

You are as bad as them so shove your fake intelligent nonsense

Sorry Sludge, I have scrolled up and I can't see what link you are referring to? Maybe you could re-post it?

[az city]

..pandemic (a week or two after we left), and a war in Europe. The assumptions on pretty much every aspect of every countries economy is not easy to do in those circumstances. The same OBR recently cut their growth prediction for this just a few months after their last prediction for the 2024 budget. Their predictions are not gospel and any long term model is riven by even greater uncertainty.

But that's not to say it's not valid. Of course it is. But what it doesn't do is override other key economic facts, on matters such as GDP, wages, inflation, FTSE performance and the like. If you want to come to a rounded conclusion then you absolutely consider those factors too. The EU isnt just a trade body. If it was then such an approach may have more merit, but we were asked to vote on the consideration of a very diverse range of factors (see here for some of the economic ones https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics...endum-36355564 ) and so it is only right than an assessment of the impact considers these too.

Basing a rather bombastic statement on a prediction on one part of the economy and ignoring facts on other far more holistic metrics is discontinuous and illogical. If a big economic change were an "unmitigated disaster" then it would show up in GDP, wages, inflation, stock markets, house prices, unemployment and the like, and is easily assessed against those who didn't go through that change.

If the impact basically leads to the same level of growth Vs our peers, slightly lower unemployment, similar inflation, slightly better wage growth, similar stock market performance etc etc then the impact is highly unlikely to be "an unmitigated disaster". Unhelpful? Maybe. Disruptive? Probably? Mixed results? Sure. What was promised? Definitely not so far. Unmitigated disaster? Absolutely not.

Is there a cure for hubris? Apparently not in your case.

You know better than the OBR and every other expert in the field. You're pitiful.

Now do jog on, your village is missing you.

[az city]

AZ copied and pasted an OBR report on here to back up his conclusion that Brexit is "an unmitigated disaster", with no sense of irony posted a day or two after we had tariffs slapped on us that are half those of the EU, but we'll leave that one lie.

The OBR report makes assumptions on what trade with the EU would have been over the last few years since we left. Since then of course we've had a psnd

FYI, the OBR post is a summary from 2025 of their various analyses over the last decade. You think the 10% Trump tariff on the UK is a win apparently. Maybe you could explain that one.

[JamesWales]

FYI, the OBR post is a summary from 2025 of their various analyses over the last decade. You think the 10% Trump tariff on the UK is a win apparently. Maybe you could explain that one.

Is not a win, but if you are arguing tariffs are bad you can't then argue that 10% is less bad than the 20% we otherwise would have had

[JamesWales]

Is there a cure for hubris? Apparently not in your case.

You know better than the OBR and every other expert in the field. You're pitiful.

Now do jog on, your village is missing you.

No, was just getting it clear. So in your analysis of general impact on such a momentous economic change, you are..

Ignoring real GDP data, ignoring unemployment, ignoring the stock market, ignoring house prices, ignoring inflation, ignoring currency variations, wages and the myriad of other factors that make up a living economy (and were told would be wildly impacted) and basing it solely on a model and a prediction of one part of the economy, namely the trade of goods with the European Union, produced by an organisation that updates their own predictions from six months ago but now is spot on in terms of carrying from a hypothetical period that ended nine years ago?

And that's just the economy, let alone the political and social changes.

That's fine if so and if you are consistent on that going forward.

You can think on balance it's been negative. Toucan definitely think it's been negative on UK/EU trade but "unmitigated disaster" is an extremely bombastic statement with very little to back it up.

[JamesWales]

FYI, the OBR post is a summary from 2025 of their various analyses over the last decade. You think the 10% Trump tariff on the UK is a win apparently. Maybe you could explain that one.

It is not a win, but if you are arguing tariffs are bad you can't then argue that 10% is less bad than the 20% we otherwise would have had. Although I have a feeling you may try to do that.

[JamesWales]

It is not a win, but if you are arguing tariffs are bad you can't then argue that 10% is less bad than the 20% we otherwise would have had. Although I have a feeling you may try to do that.

I mean of course that you can't argue that 10% tariffs are *worse* than 20%..

[Wales-Bales]

I mean of course that you can't argue that 10% tariffs are *worse* than 20%..

TDS is a terrible illness with no known cure!

[jon1959]

TDS is a terrible illness with no known cure!

But nothing like as bad as Trump Infatuation Syndrome (TIS).

How do you think Trump's impersonation of Liz Truss is going?

[Wales-Bales]

But nothing like as bad as Trump Infatuation Syndrome (TIS).

How do you think Trump's impersonation of Liz Truss is going?

They should have stuck with LT and then we wouldn't have had the switcheroo RS/KS tag-team.

[jon1959]

They should have stuck with LT and then we wouldn't have had the switcheroo RS/KS tag-team.

No, we'd have had Liz Truss!

Nice to see you off the fence on this one.

[Dorcus]

No, we'd have had Liz Truss!

Nice to see you off the fence on this one.

Thank Goodness we had the lettuce instead!

[Wales-Bales]

No, we'd have had Liz Truss!

Nice to see you off the fence on this one.

I'm afraid you will just have to watch this one play out.

[JamesWales]

Tariffs up to 125% on China. 90 day pause on those countries that haven't reciprocated to negotiate. Absolute chaos

[delmbox]

Tariffs up to 125% on China. 90 day pause on those countries that haven't reciprocated to negotiate. Absolute chaos

Absolutely shat himself more like. Massive backdown dressed up as a strong decision