More fish, mhaze?

//“If Britain was still in the EU… benefit for the UK…”//

A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit: weaker GDP growth, reduced investment, and more expensive imports. Celebrating that as a “benefit” is like praising a firefighter for saving one room while the rest of the house burns.

//“CO2… fixed it for you… NBER yield increases…”//

NBER also cautions that these gains plateau and are offset by rising heat stress, drought, and pest damage - problems already cutting yields in major breadbaskets. Cherry-picking one line while ignoring the rest of the study isn’t a fix, it’s selective editing.

Even the authors say CO2 fertilization doesn’t mean climate change is a net agricultural win. If you think it does, cite them saying so directly.

//“Fish in a barrel… chutzpah…”//

It’s not chutzpah when the barrel’s full of unaddressed caveats, half-finished policies, and definitions you keep shifting mid-argument. Pointing that out isn’t denial, it’s why this keeps feeling one-sided.

Thanks for the fish! Keep 'em coming...

"A 10% carve-out doesn’t erase the broader economic hit from Brexit:'

oh good.. because I didn't say it did. I just said that being outside the EU got them a better deal. That's all I said. You've now spent how many posts trying to find a way to say what is obviously true is wrong by bringing up things I never claimed. Do try to do better next time.

"NBER also cautions that these gains plateau and are offset by rising heat stress, drought, and pest damage - problems already cutting yields in major breadbaskets."

Do they? Where?

"Even the authors say CO2 fertilization doesn’t mean climate change is a net agricultural win. "

Do they? Where?

You got me, mhaze.

//Do they? Where?//

They don't. I guess that means all your cited victories really WERE victories of Trump's.

Oh, hang on...

“...fertilization of yield diminish as droughts intensify under agricultural field conditions, and are lost … which tends to offset the influence of CO2.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016138

“...ambient carbon dioxide (CO2)… increased precipitation changes… climate extremes such as drought stress have emerged.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1375175/full

“...seed yields in response to rising carbon dioxide… or decreased yields in response to warming temperatures… synthesis of their concurrent effects is lacking.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192323004276

So, it appears I misattributed a fact. That's what you get for having too many tabs open, I suppose, but it doesn’t change the fact that the science still says your “CO2 win” comes with serious crop risks.

//Being outside the EU got them a better deal.//

A slightly better tariff carve-out isn’t a strategic win when the bigger Brexit picture is weaker GDP, higher import costs, and reduced investment. Calling that a “benefit” is like declaring victory for saving one lifeboat while the ship sinks.

//Brookings… price increases… inflation lower now.//

And yet, tariffs did cause documented short-term inflation and consumer cost spikes. Pointing to lower CPI today doesn’t erase the billions paid during the upheaval. That’s not “long-term success,” it’s a case of lighting a fire and then claiming credit when the smoke clears.

Back you go...

"So, it appears I misattributed a fact. "

Yeah I knew that your claims were wrong. So wrong that you couldn't even fudge it.

"A slightly better tariff carve-out isn’t a strategic win when the bigger Brexit picture is weaker GDP, higher import costs, and reduced investment. Calling that a “benefit” is like declaring victory for saving one lifeboat while the ship sinks."

Wow JD that's getting dangerously close to you admitting that my original point was correct. If I kept pounding away for another ten posts I might even get a full admission.... if I could be bothered.

"tariffs did cause documented short-term inflation"

Your original claim was that the tariffs "triggered inflation". Now we back to it caused a bit of a rise in prices in a few items for a short period. My work here is done.

Acknowledging a misattribution isn’t a fudge, mhaze.

//“So wrong you couldn’t even fudge it…”//

It’s what intellectually honest debate looks like. I corrected myself, cited stronger evidence, and the science still doesn’t say what you wish it did. That’s not you “catching me,” it’s me refusing to fake certainty like you do when cornered.

Those quotes again:

“...fertilization of yield diminish as droughts intensify under agricultural field conditions, and are lost … which tends to offset the influence of CO2.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016138

“...ambient carbon dioxide (CO2)… increased precipitation changes… climate extremes such as drought stress have emerged.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1375175/full

“...seed yields in response to rising carbon dioxide… or decreased yields in response to warming temperatures… synthesis of their concurrent effects is lacking.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192323004276

//“Dangerously close to admitting my original point was correct…”//

No. Your original claim wasn’t just “UK got a lower tariff,” it was that Brexit was a benefit. I’ve been consistent: a marginally better tariff doesn’t erase weaker GDP, higher import costs, and collapsing investment. If saving a lifeboat while the ship sinks is your idea of a Brexit “benefit,” we clearly measure success differently.

//“Tariffs didn’t trigger inflation… just short-term price rises…”//

Tariffs did trigger inflation - that’s what those short-term price spikes were. Brookings, the Fed, and the Council on Foreign Relations documented billions in added consumer costs. Saying “it was temporary” doesn’t erase the trigger or the damage. A fire you eventually put out still burned the house.

If this is “your work done,” it’s only because you’ve stopped defending the details. After all these posts, you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory.

Twenty-eight posts in and you're yet to make a single point that holds.

You're lucky I'm so patient.

"Your original claim wasn’t just “UK got a lower tariff,” it was that Brexit was a benefit. "

No, here's my original point.

"Interestingly, the UK economic leaders are acknowledging that Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line."

You just deliberately misinterpreted my point because you could argue against it. And still can't. My work is done.

"you still haven’t shown a single complete Trump victory" .... to your satisfaction. But then you'd never acknowledge a Trump victory. There's the old joke that if Trump was filmed walking across the Potomac the TDS crowd would scream "Trump can't swim". Or if he cured cancer they'd scream about all the lost oncology jobs. But those attitudes are mild compared to your Trump hysteria.