ap8889 wrote:anticrank wrote:ap8889 wrote:
I can just as easily turn that argument against you: Spending money on NHS facilities, nurses salaries and bandages directly generates a positive GDP return due to, you know, the money getting spent on stuff and services people need.
We can choose not to make that investment. In which case, we keep that cash, but we forego the returns. Our net position is then worse, obviously. If the investment funds are then diverted to the EU, other services must suffer disproportionately.
Boom. See how that works!
I can see how it works for me, when every reputable study (including the government's) supports my argument.
What, are you now saying spending on nurses lowers GDP? Wow. I can just as easily claim that almost all economists believe that paying wages increases GDP as money circulates in the economy, and what is more I don't have to rely on complicated questions of whether trade imbalances net out as a positive for the UK. I just rely on the obvious effect that paying a nurse to care is likely to cause her to pay tax and buy goods.
Better that you stick to what I say, rather than what you'd like me to have said. I have said that the net UK position will be worse as a result of Brexit.
This is equivalent to saying that there is no known alternative investment for our EU contributions that offers a better return than EU membership. The government agrees. But, will of the people...
Which means, by sending money to the EU, we are better placed to pay nurses more. Whatever economic benefits then flow from paying nurses more, those benefits will remain available to us. Taking that money and paying it directly to nurses leaves the country worse off, in the round. And will eventually leave nurses worse off too.