These are "declared" serious economists. How does that work ?
I get the economist bit, you sit a degree and pass. But then it appears there are two further stages firstly you get split in to serious and "having a laugh" categories. And then the serious ones have a ceremony of declaration. Presumably they get an owl and a book on gravitas and swear never to tell jokes for the rest of their lives.
But then what happens the unserious ones or the serious ones who don't manage to get declared serious ? We need more research.
I'm about to gain a Masters in Economics (probably a distinction), but I won't get a job. I think I'll put myself in the unserious category (I'm certain Faisal would), so I assume that what happens is we get to watch more of the Daily Politics.
I have studied enough econometrics and economic appraisal to realise that all these forecasts are highly sensitive to initial assumptions about the variables as well as the models themselves, so it is fairly easy to get a result to order. Therefore, in a highly politicised situation like this they are a complete a waste of time even if the model has been "used properly" as someone like Charlie Bean could attest.
A few weeks ago we had a chap from the B of E come in and give us a talk. Basically their models ended up predicting reversion to the mean after two or three years for every important statistic despite his implicit admission that he has no idea how the B of E is going to get out of the current low interest rate/low growth/not unwound QE paradigm. So any forecast they give you for more than a couple of years ahead is clearly pretty much meaningless by their own reckoning.
I don't think it can be coincidental that the decade of mass immigration has also seen a fall in real earnings, productivity stagnation and disintegration of the public finances.
Did anything happen a year or two after 2006 that had an effect on the economy?
Are you saying that was the only recession Britain has ever had ?
You lose.
You're not arguing in good faith now.
One could just as easily say that David Cameron caused the 2006-2016 figures to be so much worse.
But did you notice anything unusually bad, worse than the start of the 1990s, say, around 2008?
There was a recession in 2008-2009. Likewise there were recessions in 1974-1975, 1980-1981 and 1990-1991. There were also sterling crises, an IMF crisis, miners strikes, three day weeks, a winter of discontent, stock market crashes, oil shocks and Middle Eastern wars in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
Crises happened and the economy took the consequent hits but then recovered in that period.
Compare with now - the recession ended over SIX years ago yet there has been no recovery in real earnings or productivity and government debt continues to grow.
'Two years (at least) of business uncertainty = big economic hit.
That's basically all there is to it; no-one really knows how big it will be.'
Perfect description of current Euro zone chaos.
Two years? The Eurozone has been in crisis for years. The mass migration into this country as acted a pressure release valve for Spain, Italy and France.
Indeed so. That doesn't seem to me to be a compelling reason to plunge our economy into the doldrums.
But nor is it a compelling argument against taking a decision which I consider to be in my country's interest.
0.8% off economic growth (according to NIESR) or 8% off house prices (according to George Osborne) is small beer.
I really can't get my head around the blind faith of Leavers that almost every single expert in the world, as well as simple common sense, are wrong. It's just extraordinary.
Still, the good news is that no-one can possibly claim voters weren't warned.
Thing is we've heard it all before. We heard it about the ERM... The disaster that would befall us after we exited the ERM was the excuse Major used to double interest rates and create a repossession crisis across Middle England.
We heard it again about the Euro. All the dire warnings that if we didn't join the Euro we'd be some "isolated" backward country with an economy in the slow lane.
Time and again we've had warnings of impending disaster from europhiles and time and again europhiles have been proven completely and utterly wrong.
The cupboards bare and nobody believes a word of the "establishment" anymore.
Seconded. It may well be a case of "Wolf" and this time the Woe will materialise, but I'd rather take that risk than be fooled yet again.
These are "declared" serious economists. How does that work ?
I get the economist bit, you sit a degree and pass. But then it appears there are two further stages firstly you get split in to serious and "having a laugh" categories. And then the serious ones have a ceremony of declaration. Presumably they get an owl and a book on gravitas and swear never to tell jokes for the rest of their lives.
But then what happens the unserious ones or the serious ones who don't manage to get declared serious ? We need more research.
I'm about to gain a Masters in Economics (probably a distinction), but I won't get a job. I think I'll put myself in the unserious category (I'm certain Faisal would), so I assume that what happens is we get to watch more of the Daily Politics.
I have studied enough econometrics and economic appraisal to realise that all these forecasts are highly sensitive to initial assumptions about the variables as well as the models themselves, so it is fairly easy to get a result to order. Therefore, in a highly politicised situation like this they are a complete a waste of time even if the model has been "used properly" as someone like Charlie Bean could attest.
A few weeks ago we had a chap from the B of E come in and give us a talk. Basically their models ended up predicting reversion to the mean after two or three years for every important statistic despite his implicit admission that he has no idea how the B of E is going to get out of the current low interest rate/low growth/not unwound QE paradigm. So any forecast they give you for more than a couple of years ahead is clearly pretty much meaningless by their own reckoning.
Yup. I used to work for Ernst & Young.
It was implicit (never explicit) but if our analysis ever gave the "wrong" answer for one of our clients - typically looking to use our name as an independent auditor to back them up - we'd automatically revisit the model to see what was wrong with it.
Invariably, it ended up with qualifying the assumptions again, and rationalising why.
Mark Easton doing a good job at trying to guilt trip elderly leavers into voting remain. Getting a youngster to say that they're going to live longer so they should have more of a say is a disgrace.
Why is that a disgrace? You don't like it, that's ok. But like "shameful" it seems a much overused word.
Does it need practice to come across as a simpleton or is it something that comes naturally to you?
when you can manage originality I'll upgrade you from village idiot. Do make sure your mother turns your light off tonight.
'Two years (at least) of business uncertainty = big economic hit.
That's basically all there is to it; no-one really knows how big it will be.'
Perfect description of current Euro zone chaos.
Two years? The Eurozone has been in crisis for years. The mass migration into this country as acted a pressure release valve for Spain, Italy and France.
Indeed so. That doesn't seem to me to be a compelling reason to plunge our economy into the doldrums.
But nor is it a compelling argument against taking a decision which I consider to be in my country's interest.
0.8% off economic growth (according to NIESR) or 8% off house prices (according to George Osborne) is small beer.
The major difference between most Muslims and others is that Muslims pray several times a day. And that's it.
But there is a hard minority of extremists that aren't challenged as much as they should be, and other types (common to all demographics) that play the race/religion card and get away with it [as per Rotherham] or have useful idiots refuse to even consider such things in the name of political sensitivity.
Edited extra bit: also, we should have a revolution, turf out Cameron, and install Miss Cyclefree as dictatrix.
Mr Dancer, we could have a Walk-Off between Miss Cyclefree and Mr Eagles
'Two years (at least) of business uncertainty = big economic hit.
That's basically all there is to it; no-one really knows how big it will be.'
Perfect description of current Euro zone chaos.
Two years? The Eurozone has been in crisis for years. The mass migration into this country as acted a pressure release valve for Spain, Italy and France.
Indeed so. That doesn't seem to me to be a compelling reason to plunge our economy into the doldrums.
But nor is it a compelling argument against taking a decision which I consider to be in my country's interest.
0.8% off economic growth (according to NIESR) or 8% off house prices (according to George Osborne) is small beer.
Comments
I have studied enough econometrics and economic appraisal to realise that all these forecasts are highly sensitive to initial assumptions about the variables as well as the models themselves, so it is fairly easy to get a result to order. Therefore, in a highly politicised situation like this they are a complete a waste of time even if the model has been "used properly" as someone like Charlie Bean could attest.
A few weeks ago we had a chap from the B of E come in and give us a talk. Basically their models ended up predicting reversion to the mean after two or three years for every important statistic despite his implicit admission that he has no idea how the B of E is going to get out of the current low interest rate/low growth/not unwound QE paradigm. So any forecast they give you for more than a couple of years ahead is clearly pretty much meaningless by their own reckoning.
Crises happened and the economy took the consequent hits but then recovered in that period.
Compare with now - the recession ended over SIX years ago yet there has been no recovery in real earnings or productivity and government debt continues to grow.
Do I think he still should have jumped and gone for Brexit?
Yes, I do. But I can understand why he felt he couldn't.
I hope there's a place for him in a post-Brexit Government, if it does happen (inshallah)
It was implicit (never explicit) but if our analysis ever gave the "wrong" answer for one of our clients - typically looking to use our name as an independent auditor to back them up - we'd automatically revisit the model to see what was wrong with it.
Invariably, it ended up with qualifying the assumptions again, and rationalising why.
That's how it works.
1) crash the economy properly by Brexit
2) 2 million extra unemployed
3) savage pruning of the welfare state because of run on Sterling and debt crisis.
Leading to:
A reversal of net immigration to 70-80 levels of net outward migration.
Problem solved!
NEW LABOUR THREAD