EU costs every german how much per year? That too is possible to calculate, using the same methods as the article does.
For Sweden (this was calculated by an economist in 2014), it's ca €7500 per adult swede per year in net loss. But since the major corporations and banks benefit greatly from EU-membership, on average it looks like people benefit too - broken down it's the opposite.
Sometimes it cant just be calculated in terms of economic plus or minus. Issues which affect the very fabric of a society are being undermined by the cabal called the EU with ridiculous commentary on global warming, genocide on the cv jabs, defragmentation of the family union and structure of society according to their norms etc etc. not the least of which is the fact that the rulers of the eu are elites and out of touch with humanity at large.
Of course it's hard to calculate anything, esp. with a 'moving' variable whose numerator and denominator aren't fixed: what unit shall we use? US$ or €, in from what year? 1990s constant dollars? I mean, this is all shoddy to the extreme…to say nothing about the cabal you call out.
Most people don't understand anything about the EU whose primary function is to 'harmonise' the regulatory regimes across n member-states and/or associated countries (EEC, 'free trade' partners, such as Canada, via CEPA). The main consequence is that is becomes easier, and less costly, for Big Business to, well, do their things across EU/EEC borders. Yes, this has some benefits for consumers, such as falling (relative) prices for certain items and a larger integrating economic area with corresponding clout in terms of acquisition of goods--but it also has significant drawbacks, most notably the 'democracy deficit', and--it's simply absurd to the extreme, too: just look at the still-existing variations of sockets across the bloc…
The bootstrap is a convenient method for quantifying uncertainty in parameter estimates. The paragraph you cited is sensible, basically. However, bootstrap rarely captures all uncertainty contained in a parameter estimation. Its results should be interpreted as lower bounds on uncertainty. I would therefore not recommend using bootstrap results as input to statistical hypothesis tests (but then, I would not recommend using statistical hypothesis tests at all).
Thanks for weighing in on this issue. That was my sense after a few minutes of looking around the internet.
I do think what we've got here--judging from the pre-print--is hard to say; yes, more grift (research) needed yada yada yada, but the input seems…questionable, to say nothing about the epistemological issues of designing a model and then 'testing' it with statistical analyses deriving from said model. Looks a bit like the 'climate change' stuff the IPCC is running…
EU costs every german how much per year? That too is possible to calculate, using the same methods as the article does.
For Sweden (this was calculated by an economist in 2014), it's ca €7500 per adult swede per year in net loss. But since the major corporations and banks benefit greatly from EU-membership, on average it looks like people benefit too - broken down it's the opposite.
I suspect the price tag to vary here and there, but overall I presume it to be negative for 'the average Joe or Jane'.
Of course, asking 'cui bono' will show that 'someone' (typically a legal person) will benefit from said arrangements.
Sometimes it cant just be calculated in terms of economic plus or minus. Issues which affect the very fabric of a society are being undermined by the cabal called the EU with ridiculous commentary on global warming, genocide on the cv jabs, defragmentation of the family union and structure of society according to their norms etc etc. not the least of which is the fact that the rulers of the eu are elites and out of touch with humanity at large.
Of course it's hard to calculate anything, esp. with a 'moving' variable whose numerator and denominator aren't fixed: what unit shall we use? US$ or €, in from what year? 1990s constant dollars? I mean, this is all shoddy to the extreme…to say nothing about the cabal you call out.
Most people don't understand anything about the EU whose primary function is to 'harmonise' the regulatory regimes across n member-states and/or associated countries (EEC, 'free trade' partners, such as Canada, via CEPA). The main consequence is that is becomes easier, and less costly, for Big Business to, well, do their things across EU/EEC borders. Yes, this has some benefits for consumers, such as falling (relative) prices for certain items and a larger integrating economic area with corresponding clout in terms of acquisition of goods--but it also has significant drawbacks, most notably the 'democracy deficit', and--it's simply absurd to the extreme, too: just look at the still-existing variations of sockets across the bloc…
The bootstrap is a convenient method for quantifying uncertainty in parameter estimates. The paragraph you cited is sensible, basically. However, bootstrap rarely captures all uncertainty contained in a parameter estimation. Its results should be interpreted as lower bounds on uncertainty. I would therefore not recommend using bootstrap results as input to statistical hypothesis tests (but then, I would not recommend using statistical hypothesis tests at all).
Thanks for weighing in on this issue. That was my sense after a few minutes of looking around the internet.
I do think what we've got here--judging from the pre-print--is hard to say; yes, more grift (research) needed yada yada yada, but the input seems…questionable, to say nothing about the epistemological issues of designing a model and then 'testing' it with statistical analyses deriving from said model. Looks a bit like the 'climate change' stuff the IPCC is running…
". . . such as the greater personal freedom resulting from freedom of movement." Vaccine pass, anyone?