Joseph Lane, head of forecasting at the Economist Intelligence Unit, opines that "If there was a domestic terror attack by someone from abroad, voters would flock to (Trump) in that situation."
Ahhh yes, I was in a Starbucks in Seattle, and the PB mob was howling for Disqus to be replaced (as it had just implemented compulsory threading).
I made the change and all was well. And made my next meeting
The old comments are actually in the Wordpress database. If I didn't have a very serious job, and a lack of 20 hours to do the work, I'd write a little web app to allow old browsing of comments...
Hmmm...
Disqus started out bad, and then become abysmal. Occasionally I come across it on other sites, and it never fails to amaze me how bad it is. The most egregious lunacy is the 'feature' whereby, as you are reading a recent post, it starts shifting to the left. What 12-year old developer thought that was a 'cool' idea?
There are a fair few science fiction / ???(can't remember the current preferred prefix) fantasy series where multiple alternative timelines have a few people who can cross between timelines usually with catastrophic consequences for all involved.. And given infinite alternative timelines the technology to do so must have been created in some of them...
That last sentence is not true!
How weird is the timeline you claim not to have come from?
I don't understand your point. If a number of items is infinite, that doesn't mean that any particular item you can think of, weird or otherwise - or an item with some specific characteristic that not every item must have - must exist.
That I think, Mr. Dromedary, is to mistake the nature of infinity. I don't want to get all Douglas Adams here but there are, mathematically proveably, an infinite number of infinities. So whilst there is no certainty that something can exist in a infinite universe made of up of an infinite number of infinities the chances of it not existing somewhere are infinitely small.
Ahhh yes, I was in a Starbucks in Seattle, and the PB mob was howling for Disqus to be replaced (as it had just implemented compulsory threading).
I made the change and all was well. And made my next meeting
The old comments are actually in the Wordpress database. If I didn't have a very serious job, and a lack of 20 hours to do the work, I'd write a little web app to allow old browsing of comments...
Hmmm...
Disqus started out bad, and then become abysmal. Occasionally I come across it on other sites, and it never fails to amaze me how bad it is. The most egregious lunacy is the 'feature' whereby, as you are reading a recent post, it starts shifting to the left. What 12-year old developer thought that was a 'cool' idea?
As someone once observed to me, there's a reason why Disqus is free for websites to use.
I would be interested in your thoughts on his potential successor, although any decision is unlikely to be made for many months.
Bloody hell, Chartres is chucking his hand in. Bloody shame, I twice hoped he make ++Canterbury. A bloody good egg, sound and with bottom. Genuinely sad to see him go, but I suppose he isn't getting any younger.
On the betting side of this I think you are very wise to ask Mr. Charles. He has in the past been particularly fortunate in his information about episcopal appointments, allowing me to make a few quid. The old Dean has gone now so I don't suppose the market will be as liquid as it once was.
Nonetheless, come on Mr. Charles, nose to the grindstone, old boy, ear to the ground and ferret out those tips for us.
I'm not a religious person but Chartres has always seemed pretty solid to me. Am I correct in thinking that London is seen as just below the two arch episcopal sees? Interesting timing too giving Mrs May the first opportunity to use one of the few remaining prerogative powers. Wonder if she will appoint a woman or play it safe?
Does not the Church still have to put up the names for the PM to pick from? One never knows with the CofE, especially under that prick Welby, but I doubt they will put up a woman for +London, not this time around anyway.
Politics is dull. I am like some jaded, decadent old roué. We meed a drama, a scandal or a crisis. *claps hands* entertain me world.
C'mon, it's been trying its bestest for the past four weeks.
That's what I mean. I'm spoiled. I've not enjoyed 2016 (too many old favourites passed on, too much hostility) but I have been flat out fascinated by it. Donald Trump might be POTUS. Imagine that. Donald Trump. However, I seek fresh drama .
There are a fair few science fiction / ???(can't remember the current preferred prefix) fantasy series where multiple alternative timelines have a few people who can cross between timelines usually with catastrophic consequences for all involved.. And given infinite alternative timelines the technology to do so must have been created in some of them...
That last sentence is not true!
How weird is the timeline you claim not to have come from?
I don't understand your point. If a number of items is infinite, that doesn't mean that any particular item you can think of, weird or otherwise - or an item with some specific characteristic that not every item must have - must exist.
That I think, Mr. Dromedary, is to mistake the nature of infinity. I don't want to get all Douglas Adams here but there are, mathematically proveably, an infinite number of infinities.
I know there are, but my point still stands. It even stands if one replaces "infinite alternative timelines" with "uncountably infinite alternative timelines" or insists on some specific aleph number greater than aleph-one. (I considered whether it would or not before posting.)
So whilst there is no certainty that something can exist in a infinite universe made of up of an infinite number of infinities the chances of it not existing somewhere are infinitely small.
You're shifting the goalposts. "Infinite number of" doesn't mean "all conceivable", in our context. Even if we could show that the two sets had the same cardinality, that wouldn't prove the thesis. And why assume construction of the hypothesised technology is possible anyway?
Far be it from me to swim against the tide, but I was quite impressed by Mays first week while uncomfortable with her performance at PMQs... It seemed to be too much of a 'performance', and less gentlemanly men than myself, perhaps @Danny565, could say other uncharitable things too.
The Labour front bench now resembles Alec Guiness's workload in Arsenic and Old Lace the way it is going, Emily Thornberry is now covering a major state position and a brand new position which is going to take up huge amounts of time for the next four years plus. Would the Tories be cruel and schedule parliamentary questions for Johnson and then Davis one after another so that she has to pull long shifts?......I would be, she struggles to manage a regular stint.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea. That's just the two largest European risks. Asia could come completely unglued as well.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
Who'd have thought it? Defiant economy refuses to act as experts said it would
It's extremely early days, so only a half-wit would form any conclusion as to how serious the economic damage is, but so far the economy has behaved exactly as predicted for the first few days after the referendum: sterling down substantially, domestic-focused shares and especially banks, housebuilders and commercial property funds down, and forward-looking indicators of consumer and business confidence down considerably.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects on the wider economy. I doubt that they will have been, but we shall see.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Who'd have thought it? Defiant economy refuses to act as experts said it would
It's extremely early days, so only a half-wit would form any conclusion as to how serious the economic damage is, but so far the economy has behaved exactly as predicted for the first few days after the referendum: sterling down substantially, domestic-focused shares and especially banks, housebuilders and commercial property funds down, and forward-looking indicators of consumer and business confidence down considerably.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects. I doubt that they will be, but we shall see.
I think people of all sides in all walks of life try to use predictions on things that are unpredictable to skew perceptions one way or tother. I just liked the headline really, I think it's applicable to a lot of circumstances
There are a fair few science fiction / ???(can't remember the current preferred prefix) fantasy series where multiple alternative timelines have a few people who can cross between timelines usually with catastrophic consequences for all involved.. And given infinite alternative timelines the technology to do so must have been created in some of them...
That last sentence is not true!
How weird is the timeline you claim not to have come from?
I don't understand your point. If a number of items is infinite, that doesn't mean that any particular item you can think of, weird or otherwise - or an item with some specific characteristic that not every item must have - must exist.
That I think, Mr. Dromedary, is to mistake the nature of infinity. I don't want to get all Douglas Adams here but there are, mathematically proveably, an infinite number of infinities.
I know there are, but my point still stands. It even stands if one replaces "infinite alternative timelines" with "uncountably infinite alternative timelines" or insists on some specific aleph number greater than aleph-one. (I considered whether it would or not before posting.)
So whilst there is no certainty that something can exist in a infinite universe made of up of an infinite number of infinities the chances of it not existing somewhere are infinitely small.
You're shifting the goalposts. "Infinite number of" doesn't mean "all conceivable", in our context. Even if we could show that the two sets had the same cardinality, that wouldn't prove the thesis. And why assume construction of the hypothesised technology is possible anyway?
My dear old Dromedary, of course I am shifting the goalposts. I am asking the reader to switch from your post that because someone can imagine a thing doesn't mean it must exist, even in an infinite universe, to the idea that that the chances of it not exiting are infinitely small. So small in fact as to make the difference between certainty and chance infinitesimal.
And I think at that point I'd best go to bed. Rather too much Malt this evening.
Who'd have thought it? Defiant economy refuses to act as experts said it would
It's extremely early days, so only a half-wit would form any conclusion as to how serious the economic damage is, but so far the economy has behaved exactly as predicted for the first few days after the referendum: sterling down substantially, domestic-focused shares and especially banks, housebuilders and commercial property funds down, and forward-looking indicators of consumer and business confidence down considerably.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects. I doubt that they will have been, but we shall see.
Indeed. And we are still in the EU, and will be for years and years. Boris, Fox and Davis (sounds like a shit law firm) have to put a solid deal on the table before we invoke Article 50.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
Who'd have thought it? Defiant economy refuses to act as experts said it would
It's extremely early days, so only a half-wit would form any conclusion as to how serious the economic damage is, but so far the economy has behaved exactly as predicted for the first few days after the referendum: sterling down substantially, domestic-focused shares and especially banks, housebuilders and commercial property funds down, and forward-looking indicators of consumer and business confidence down considerably.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects on the wider economy. I doubt that they will have been, but we shall see.
On the plus side shares with foreign revenue streams have done well
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
The IMF forecast is pretty benign. We'll grow more slowly, but it will be real terms economic growth, and they believe we'll still outperform Germany (impressive imo), France (meh) and Italy (like world+wife).
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
Who'd have thought it? Defiant economy refuses to act as experts said it would
It's extremely early days, so only a half-wit would form any conclusion as to how serious the economic damage is, but so far the economy has behaved exactly as predicted for the first few days after the referendum: sterling down substantially, domestic-focused shares and especially banks, housebuilders and commercial property funds down, and forward-looking indicators of consumer and business confidence down considerably.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects. I doubt that they will have been, but we shall see.
Indeed. And we are still in the EU, and will be for years and years. Boris, Fox and Davis (sounds like a shit law firm) have to put a solid deal on the table before we invoke Article 50.
Waiting for fucking Godot.
A negotiating plan not a deal as such is what is required. No way will the matter be left up in the air indefinitely. It would be political suicide for TM and the country would be an international laughing stock. Hard Brexit / soft Brexit is where the uncertainty lies.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
The IMF forecast is pretty benign. We'll grow more slowly, but it will be real terms economic growth, and they believe we'll still outperform Germany (impressive imo), France (meh) and Italy (like world+wife).
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
What do u guys think of Milo Yiannopoulos bieng banned on twitter? Do conservatives and Libertarians get treated unfairly?
It's Twitter's house. They can do whatever makes commercial sense for them. Milo is a dick, albeit an entertaining dick. As to Twitter's bias, I've no idea how we could objectively verify that.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
The IMF forecast is pretty benign. We'll grow more slowly, but it will be real terms economic growth, and they believe we'll still outperform Germany (impressive imo), France (meh) and Italy (like world+wife).
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
No, the IMF doesn't assume EEA. As you say, the forecast horizon falls within our membership period.
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I agree with you that no-one seems to understand the economy nowadays. For eight years we have lived on free money and they are even talking about negative interest rates now (indeed some government bonds are already negative). Whatever QE has done, it hasn't turned out in the way that anyone expected: the result has been significant asset prices rises whilst leaving price inflation miraculously unaffected. The social inequality arising from QE - which again no-one really foresaw - is at the root of all sort of problems including a lot of the political pressures we enjoy discussing in here.
If anything the world is tipping towards deflation which, since so many governments, companies and individuals are carrying huge debts, could be really scary. Japan has been trying to escape from this trap for twenty years, has repeatedly thrown huge amounts of money at it (another wave is about to be unleashed), yet after all this time they still face deflationary pressure and by any objective assessment it is now impossible for them to stop the inexorable rise of their debt, let alone pay it off. The only reason Japan hasn't collapsed is that most of the debt is held domestically and whilst the plates keep spinning no one is panicking. Plenty of economists think all this is heading for some sort of global collapse, but the truth is that this too is simply a reaction to their not understanding anything.
There are no precedents for the economic situation we are in, and basically no-one has a clue how it will end.
One of the strongest arguments against Brexit was that another unexpected shock was the last thing the global economy needed. I think a lot of the top politicians understand this all too well - hence all the 'project fear' stuff - but since they are supposed to be in charge, they could hardly tell the whole story since it would mean admitting we are all in a big mess and no-one knows how to escape!
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
No, the IMF doesn't assume EEA. As you say, the forecast horizon falls within our membership period.
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
Yet there is this from an article in the Financial Times yesterday entitied "IMF cuts growth forecast for the UK" The forecast of a 1% relative cut in growth is for 2017
The IMF’s latest forecasts assume the UK and the EU will reach a trading relationship similar to that of Norway, meaning Britain would stay inside the European single market. The IMF said ahead of the June Brexit vote that this scenario would mean households and companies would soon be “relatively confident about the new long run, and therefore uncertainty dissipates relatively quickly”.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
If anything the world is tipping towards deflation which, since so many governments, companies and individuals are carrying huge debts, could be really scary. Japan has been trying to escape from this trap for twenty years, has repeatedly thrown huge amounts of money at it (another wave is about to be unleashed), yet after all this time they still face deflationary pressure and by any objective assessment it is now impossible for them to stop the inexorable rise of their debt, let alone pay it off. The only reason Japan hasn't collapsed is that most of the debt is held domestically and whilst the plates keep spinning no one is panicking. Plenty of economists think all this is heading for some sort of global collapse, but the truth is that this too is simply a reaction to their not understanding anything.
There are no precedents for the economic situation we are in, and basically no-one has a clue how it will end.
One of the strongest arguments against Brexit was that another unexpected shock was the last thing the global economy needed. I think a lot of the top politicians understand this all too well - hence all the 'project fear' stuff - but since they are supposed to be in charge, they could hardly tell the whole story since it would mean admitting we are all in a big mess and no-one knows how to escape!
Well said. I voted Leave while clutching my lucky rabbit's foot and clenching a four leaf clover between my teeth. Many, if not most Brexiteers voted in ignorance of the risks. I don't have that excuse.
Oh that's good. It's embarrassing she used to be an MP.
Just imagine if she hadn't stood down as an MP, she might have filled the Andrea Leadsom role.
She could have become PM this year!
That's the sort of nightmare alternative timeline that gives you sleepless nights...
Here's a thought that will make Mensch as PM seem like a pleasant dream.
At the next general election the choice could have been Corbyn v Leadsom, in one universe, that'll be the option.
Even worse - Angela Eagle vs Leadsom!
I admire Angela Eagle. She stepped up while all the so-called big beasts were cowering on the back benches and bitching about Corbyn in the corners. Labour's grandees have absolutely no balls.
Fair do's. It is just a shame that the most interesting thing she said during her campaign turned out to be a microphone test.
Oh that's good. It's embarrassing she used to be an MP.
Just imagine if she hadn't stood down as an MP, she might have filled the Andrea Leadsom role.
She could have become PM this year!
That's the sort of nightmare alternative timeline that gives you sleepless nights...
Here's a thought that will make Mensch as PM seem like a pleasant dream.
At the next general election the choice could have been Corbyn v Leadsom, in one universe, that'll be the option.
Even worse - Angela Eagle vs Leadsom!
I admire Angela Eagle. She stepped up while all the so-called big beasts were cowering on the back benches and bitching about Corbyn in the corners. Labour's grandees have absolutely no balls.
Fair do's. It is just a shame that the most interesting thing she said during her campaign turned out to be a microphone test.
"Porridge" is to Angela Eagle as "Banana" is to David Miliband?
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
No, the IMF doesn't assume EEA. As you say, the forecast horizon falls within our membership period.
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
Yet there is this from an article in the Financial Times yesterday entitied "IMF cuts growth forecast for the UK" The forecast of a 1% relative cut in growth is for 2017
Did the FT get this wrong?
I could be mistaken, it's happened before. I was referencing page 7 of the update (linkie below). I'm always happy to be corrected. Earlier in the report they do say that the benign forecast assumes
"arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom settle so as to avoid a large increase in economic barriers"
That might be construed as indicating EEA membership.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
No, the IMF doesn't assume EEA. As you say, the forecast horizon falls within our membership period.
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
Yet there is this from an article in the Financial Times yesterday entitied "IMF cuts growth forecast for the UK" The forecast of a 1% relative cut in growth is for 2017
Did the FT get this wrong?
I could be mistaken, it's happened before. I was referencing page 7 of the update (linkie below). I'm always happy to be corrected. Earlier in the report they do say that the benign forecast assumes
"arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom settle so as to avoid a large increase in economic barriers"
That might be construed as indicating EEA membership.
Thanks for the link. To be clear, it was a question about what appeared to be surprising assumptions by the IMF rather than to say you must be wrong and the FT article must be right.
If after her cabinet picks and the euphoric reactions of the kipper inclined Tory right may goes for Brexit lite, expert much wailing. If,as seems her current positioning, she goes hard Brexit, expect much sighing.
I voted Leave, but these headlines are all complete bullshit. We don't get any proper post-Brexit economic data until August 16th and the complete picture won't be in until October. The employment figures are from May ffs.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
Please read my post properly. I voted Leave. An economy the size of the UK doesn't just fall down like a sack of spuds. None of the current data is post-EUref.
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
You almost certainly know better than me, I was just taken with the headline, an inanimate object defying doubters - it resonated with me as I often find people get angry with markets not going as 'planned'.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
The IMF forecast is pretty benign. We'll grow more slowly, but it will be real terms economic growth, and they believe we'll still outperform Germany (impressive imo), France (meh) and Italy (like world+wife).
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
Yes it seems there are many complicated things that the human race wants to understand and gets angry when it can't!
The headline brought to mind king Canute and the sea...and Basil Fawlty and his red car!
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
So bad economic numbers etc are bad for Brexit and good ones are not good?
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
.
It's OK. I get a bit exercised about the subject as you may have noticed . Please accept my apologies for my stridency.
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
I think the IMF predictions are predicated on the UK joining the EEA next year as the best case scenario. Seems an unlikely scenario given the rhetoric coming out of the government, but who knows?
But we won't be leaving the EU for at least a few years, so that prediction doesn't make much sense?
No, the IMF doesn't assume EEA. As you say, the forecast horizon falls within our membership period.
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
Did the FT get this wrong?
I could be mistaken, it's happened before. I was referencing page 7 of the update (linkie below). I'm always happy to be corrected. Earlier in the report they do say that the benign forecast assumes
"arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom settle so as to avoid a large increase in economic barriers"
That might be construed as indicating EEA membership.
Thanks for the link. To be clear, it was a question about what appeared to be surprising assumptions by the IMF rather than to say you must be wrong and the FT article must be right.
It's fine Mr FF43, I am human, I do err. Still, I do try not to deliberately twist the facts to suit my narrative! Good night all.
I watched PMQs today. Where Cameron, Blair and Brown would stand up and open their briefing book to the appropriate page and go, May just stood up and went for it without opening her binder. She had her brief well mastered, and delivered some great zingers. Not good news for Corbyn going forward.
I noticed his questions were long and weary, like shaggy dog stories - when I woke up there was a bird outside my window, traffic was bad on the way to work, the coffee machine is jammed again, my lunch sandwich was stale, I forgot to fill in my pools coupon, and does the Prime Minister plan to make sure black people get treated as well as white people?
BREAKING NEWS: British airman is attacked by knife-wielding assailants outside the RAF base from where raids are launched against ISIS 'in possible terror attack'
BREAKING NEWS: British airman is attacked by knife-wielding assailants outside the RAF base from where raids are launched against ISIS 'in possible terror attack'
BREAKING NEWS: British airman is attacked by knife-wielding assailants outside the RAF base from where raids are launched against ISIS 'in possible terror attack'
- or as the Feds here would call it, "workplace violence".
BREAKING NEWS: British airman is attacked by knife-wielding assailants outside the RAF base from where raids are launched against ISIS 'in possible terror attack'
"Two knifemen are on the run after threatening a British airman outside an RAF base home to jets bombing the Islamic State.
RAF Marham, near King’s Lynn, Norfolk, was reportedly placed on lockdown after the serviceman was approached by the blade-wielding assailants at around 3.30pm yesterday.
Police would not comment on whether the incident was terror related but a source told the Sun that there was a 'strong possibility' this was a terror attack, adding 'this could've been a lot more serious'."
I agree with you that no-one seems to understand the economy nowadays.
I think it is more nuanced than that. Being unable to make useful numerical predictions is not the same has not understanding the system. We can express Chaotic Systems with mathematical formula which show that we can understand them - it is just that such systems are so sensitive to initial conditions that we cannot measure it precisely enough to predict the outcomes.
To be fair, the economy is way more complex than that, and truly complex systems have emergent properties which are simply unpredictable. But again, this does not mean that we do not have understanding nor that we are unable to take measures which we know will, in general, make the economy better.
We cannot predict how a wildfire will act, but we can understand that they are more likely to happen and be worse if we never clear out the dead undergrowth. Likewise, with the economy, we do know certain things about it, and can say with confidence that given a choice between policy A vs B which one is more likely to lead to economic growth etc... We just can't predict it in % growth or contraction.
My choice of Leave was cognizant of the highly likely short-term costs and the more unpredictable risks, in the expectation that, in the longer term, the UK would be more flexible and responsive to a more rapidly changing global economic environment that the sclerotic behemoth of the EU ever could be, hence that the short-term costs would be outweighed by that longer term advantage.
I noticed his questions were long and weary, like shaggy dog stories - when I woke up there was a bird outside my window, traffic was bad on the way to work, the coffee machine is jammed again, my lunch sandwich was stale, I forgot to fill in my pools coupon, and does the Prime Minister plan to make sure black people get treated as well as white people?
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Have to say I am quite impressed with the steady, unflappable way Theresa May is going about Brexit. From this Guardian report, her approach may well improve the UK's relative negotiating strength if France and Germany have difficulty in coming to a common view on the EU's future and hence their negotiating stance.
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Wanted to pick up on Mike Smithson's excellent thread re. Corbynistas. It's like dealing with JW's at the moment. There's nothing you can say to them. I had one the other day tell me that 'this antisemitism thing is a fabrication and a red herring.'
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
Such a name wouldn't be allowed under the 1998(?) Act, I don't think.
Looking at the Electoral Commission guidance on naming of political parties, I don't think it is a slam dunk that New Labour would not be permitted, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would.
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
Yeah.
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
"Two knifemen are on the run after threatening a British airman outside an RAF base home to jets bombing the Islamic State.
RAF Marham, near King’s Lynn, Norfolk, was reportedly placed on lockdown after the serviceman was approached by the blade-wielding assailants at around 3.30pm yesterday.
Police would not comment on whether the incident was terror related but a source told the Sun that there was a 'strong possibility' this was a terror attack, adding 'this could've been a lot more serious'."
Police advised they are not looking for two Norwegian nuns...
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Great piece by Economist (and BNC man) Tim Harford on Brexit and confirmation bias in the FT - also available on his website. Line about accepting bad news being because of Brexit but explaining away good news because it didn't chime with expectations would be well heeded by many on here, myself included:
Comments
I note Phillip Davies and Dennis Skinner both voted against. Land of the dinosaurs
Division:
https://hansard.digiminster.com/Commons/2016-07-20/division/HOCDT20160720DIV50/ElectoralReform
Nobody would pay to use it.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/755871999415681027
Would the Tories be cruel and schedule parliamentary questions for Johnson and then Davis one after another so that she has to pull long shifts?......I would be, she struggles to manage a regular stint.
Pray that Italy sorts its banks out and that the good ship Deutsche Bank doesn't suddenly turn turtle and sink to the bottom of the Eurozone sea. That's just the two largest European risks. Asia could come completely unglued as well.
It's going to be grim, dark and not particularly pleasant for the next couple of years.
Wait a year, and you might be able to say if the experts were wrong about the short-term (1 to 2 year) effects on the wider economy. I doubt that they will have been, but we shall see.
Can I arrange a dinner for yourself and ScottP? I think you'd get on
And I think at that point I'd best go to bed. Rather too much Malt this evening.
G'night, all and play nicely.
Waiting for fucking Godot.
https://twitter.com/MattHancockMP/status/755829769049088003
My commercial experience is that people don't like surprises. Brexiteers are consistently saying that everything in the garden is rosy. This is the wrong message and the wrong tone.
I don't like my own 'side' making rookie mistakes.
As well all know, my taste in music is awesome
I can't get a feel for this race
The next couple of years are going to cost the UK between £20-40 billion in opportunity costs (based on the IFS report). That's manageable, but we shouldn't deny that we could have used the money for something else.
The IMF forecast is pretty benign. We'll grow more slowly, but it will be real terms economic growth, and they believe we'll still outperform Germany (impressive imo), France (meh) and Italy (like world+wife).
I do agree that economists seem to be only able to offer explanations, rather than predictions. There's a decent chance that the global economy is now too opaque and complex for humans to truly grok it.
And Slaven's been our manager for the last year in any case.
It's been fun though, besides having to bail-out the ten this morning and the fecking midges!
Right, what have I missed?
It does have a more severe scenario where it becomes clear quite quickly that UK/EU talks will result in WTO on exit. However, it doesn't explicitly forecast UK growth in that scenario, rather it talks about global impacts - all it says is that the UK will fall into recession.
If anything the world is tipping towards deflation which, since so many governments, companies and individuals are carrying huge debts, could be really scary. Japan has been trying to escape from this trap for twenty years, has repeatedly thrown huge amounts of money at it (another wave is about to be unleashed), yet after all this time they still face deflationary pressure and by any objective assessment it is now impossible for them to stop the inexorable rise of their debt, let alone pay it off. The only reason Japan hasn't collapsed is that most of the debt is held domestically and whilst the plates keep spinning no one is panicking. Plenty of economists think all this is heading for some sort of global collapse, but the truth is that this too is simply a reaction to their not understanding anything.
There are no precedents for the economic situation we are in, and basically no-one has a clue how it will end.
One of the strongest arguments against Brexit was that another unexpected shock was the last thing the global economy needed. I think a lot of the top politicians understand this all too well - hence all the 'project fear' stuff - but since they are supposed to be in charge, they could hardly tell the whole story since it would mean admitting we are all in a big mess and no-one knows how to escape!
The IMF’s latest forecasts assume the UK and the EU will reach a trading relationship similar to that of Norway, meaning Britain would stay inside the European single market. The IMF said ahead of the June Brexit vote that this scenario would mean households and companies would soon be “relatively confident about the new long run, and therefore uncertainty dissipates relatively quickly”.
Did the FT get this wrong?
"arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom settle so as to avoid a large increase in economic barriers"
That might be construed as indicating EEA membership.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/02/pdf/0716.pdf
Wow, who knew May could do the Lolz?
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/roger-ailes-fox-news-murdoch-brothers-megyn-kelly-1201817956/
Good night
The headline brought to mind king Canute and the sea...and Basil Fawlty and his red car!
I noticed his questions were long and weary, like shaggy dog stories - when I woke up there was a bird outside my window, traffic was bad on the way to work, the coffee machine is jammed again, my lunch sandwich was stale, I forgot to fill in my pools coupon, and does the Prime Minister plan to make sure black people get treated as well as white people?
BREAKING NEWS: British airman is attacked by knife-wielding assailants outside the RAF base from where raids are launched against ISIS 'in possible terror attack'
"Two knifemen are on the run after threatening a British airman outside an RAF base home to jets bombing the Islamic State.
RAF Marham, near King’s Lynn, Norfolk, was reportedly placed on lockdown after the serviceman was approached by the blade-wielding assailants at around 3.30pm yesterday.
Police would not comment on whether the incident was terror related but a source told the Sun that there was a 'strong possibility' this was a terror attack, adding 'this could've been a lot more serious'."
To be fair, the economy is way more complex than that, and truly complex systems have emergent properties which are simply unpredictable. But again, this does not mean that we do not have understanding nor that we are unable to take measures which we know will, in general, make the economy better.
We cannot predict how a wildfire will act, but we can understand that they are more likely to happen and be worse if we never clear out the dead undergrowth. Likewise, with the economy, we do know certain things about it, and can say with confidence that given a choice between policy A vs B which one is more likely to lead to economic growth etc... We just can't predict it in % growth or contraction.
My choice of Leave was cognizant of the highly likely short-term costs and the more unpredictable risks, in the expectation that, in the longer term, the UK would be more flexible and responsive to a more rapidly changing global economic environment that the sclerotic behemoth of the EU ever could be, hence that the short-term costs would be outweighed by that longer term advantage.
Very good!
I can't really see any other solution now except a breakaway new Labour party. Maybe they should just call themselves 'New Labour.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/angela-merkel-backs-theresa-mays-plan-not-to-trigger-brexit-this-year
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf
My reasoning is this: affixing 'New' in front of an existing party name is not explicitly prohibited, in contrast to 'English', 'British' and 'Independent' which are explicitly banned if used in such manner.
However, in addition to banning names that merely prefix Labour with English, etc... there is the test as to whether the name is likely to mislead and facilitate voters voting in an unintentional manner. Given that 'New Labour' is clearly identified with a wing of the Labour Party, I think it would almost certainly fail this test. ... unless somehow the members of this new party could convince the Electoral Commission somehow that no such confusion could possibly arise as the whole New Labour wing of the party was leaving Labour, and hence there was no New Labour within Labour, so no misleading or confusion. A very long shot...
The good news for myself, @Scrapheap_as_was et al. is that "The Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party" is probably sufficiently distinct to be allowed by the commission
BBC ‘top story’ Vitamin D supplements – seems an age since we had such a banal headline.
http://timharford.com/2016/07/brexit-and-the-power-of-wishful-thinking/
(I'm in San Fran twice a year usually.)
http://gawker.com/my-week-stripping-in-cleveland-during-the-rnc-1783863633
I'm in Blackburn. Who knew it could be this warm so early in the morning oop north!