politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Experto credite, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way
Comments
-
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.0 -
Finally some sense is returning to these experts, after their dire warnings of the apocalypse fooling the Brexit vote turned out to be rubbish.dr_spyn said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "scale of the immediate risks around Brexit have gone down" & risks are greater for Europe than for UK0 -
From the Telegraph live blog
"2:49pm
The wrong Michael Cohen
Holes are continuing to emerge in the dossier which has now made headlines around the world.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's lawyer and adviser, has already denied that he was in Prague on the dates mentioned in the document.
Now CNN is reporting that a different Michael Cohen visited Prague on those dates. Maybe a different Donald Trump visited Moscow?"
Titters...0 -
Jay Leno used to have an occasional segment on stupid criminals. Were he still going, I think this would have made the cut:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/11/wrong-number-louisiana-man-texts-deputy-about-meth-delivery-sheriff-says.html0 -
Heart of stone, etc.dr_spyn said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "scale of the immediate risks around Brexit have gone down" & risks are greater for Europe than for UK0 -
Scepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method, though we have to be careful not to conflate healthy scepticism with mere cynicism.CarlottaVance said:It was all going so well until I got to Worshippers of the cult of ignorance cavorted with glee when I realised it was by Misery Meeks.
Scepticism of expertise is not synonymous with ignorance- as any Scientist would tell you - it's what experts are - unless of course they are so secure in their ivory tower they don't dirty their hands in the real world. Real experts learn....0 -
A convoluted reference to tractor production statistics.MTimT said:
Given your posting name, are you in the nuclear or environment industry?Chelyabinsk said:An interesting article would have asked how many of these assumptions were predicated on a Remain vote, and whether the experts changed their views when the results came in.
0 -
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
What an insightful tweet.SouthamObserver said:twitter.com/tinadupuy/status/818977609929396228
0 -
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
FPT
Re - Callaghan
He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up!
Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things0 -
No, I agree, he doesn't.dr_spyn said:@Cookie
Not sure if Andy Burnham recognises successes in Manchester he doe see rather busy to ignore them.
https://kingstonelabour.org/2017/01/03/andy-burnham-2016-is-over-it-is-time-to-let-its-rows-and-divisiveness-die-with-it/
After three decades of practical Labour party people running Manchester with the primary aim of making its citizens richer by growing its economy, Andy "He'll do I suppose" Burnham is set to come in with the sole priority of "taking on the Tories". Greater Manchester is unusually well endowed with capable Labour people with good experience at the municipal level, and why the Labour Party have elected to foist that fuckwit on us I cannot comprehend.0 -
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
Otherwise you are stupid.0 -
Any tips guys?
Want a know a classy restaurant in Rome to treat the wife (after putting up with me for a number of years). I've got a few names but just want to cross check amongst you guys since some of you are quite discerning when it comes to restaurant choice.
Many thanks.0 -
I know I am one, but I bet a few Leavers now start to like Carney for that!dr_spyn said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "scale of the immediate risks around Brexit have gone down" & risks are greater for Europe than for UK0 -
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
As I said, recognising when a situation is unsustainable is easy. (And the Prime London property market, which I am very heavily invested in, is clearly unsustainable.) Recognising when it will flip is another thing altogether.SeanT said:
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
China clearly does have a growing private sector debt problem, and a capital misallocation problem. Predicting when that will result in a nasty recession is another matter altogether*.
* It's important to remember that China having a nasty recession does not change the long-term growth profile.0 -
Buzzfeed have issued strong health warnings with the publication of the document which could be a scam.Sandpit said:
If this really is some troll in his parents' basement that has managed to get this story believed, then Buzzfeed will soon have about as much reputation for their journalism as 4chan do.PlatoSaid said:Dearie me - this has 4chan written all over it
Paul Joseph Watson
Buzzfeed just published more shocking revelations about Trump. This is not fake at all.
Something widely circulated within the US administration should be available to be publically seen if anyone wants to. You don't have to seek it out and read it.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Twenty thousand words, epic? *raises an eyebrow*0 -
But Andy has never kissed a Tory™, so he's the right man for the job.Cookie said:
No, I agree, he doesn't.dr_spyn said:@Cookie
Not sure if Andy Burnham recognises successes in Manchester he doe see rather busy to ignore them.
https://kingstonelabour.org/2017/01/03/andy-burnham-2016-is-over-it-is-time-to-let-its-rows-and-divisiveness-die-with-it/
After three decades of practical Labour party people running Manchester with the primary aim of making its citizens richer by growing its economy, Andy "He'll do I suppose" Burnham is set to come in with the sole priority of "taking on the Tories". Greater Manchester is unusually well endowed with capable Labour people with good experience at the municipal level, and why the Labour Party have elected to foist that fuckwit on us I cannot comprehend.0 -
Yes, Osborne is very good at the vision thing. If he was involved in Brexit, it would be on a far grander scale than May's defensive, minimisation of (personal) risk effort.Cookie said:
He does. I was never his greatest fan, but I never doubted and am grateful for his commitment to the Northern Powerhouse concept, together with all sorts of other smaller-scale and less well-known initiatives.JonathanD said:
George Osborne has a lot to answer for...Cookie said:On another note, Brexit or not, the current boom in Manchester is incredible and unprecedented. As recently as 18 months ago I heard it argued by development economists here that the Beetham Tower was a one-off, and the economic stars would never align that way again in Manchester - yet we've currently got 7 or 8 100m+ buildings going up, including one 200m+, and dozens more in the pipeline. There has never been such a lot of development going on here. A tower of less than 30 storeys now is barely worth mentioning. I'm not making any predictions about how long it will last, but these are exciting times for the economy in this city.
Travel around the city is a nightmare at the moment though. I wonder how long before congestion charging is suggested again. A shame we can't get an underground system.
Also worth noting that its taken over 4 years (or more) to get from some of the initial thinking to the current fruit. Sadly, a lot of the momentum will probably now be lost with all the work needed for Brexit.
0 -
It is epic in terms of blogposts.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Twenty thousand words, epic? *raises an eyebrow*
The modal PB thread is around 600-800 words long.
The longest one I've published is 1,800 words long.0 -
I feel sorry for Obama... Great speech last night.....not only has Trump supposedly defiled his bed with urine, but today's news has rather pissed on his parade too...0
-
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.FF43 said:
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.0 -
Re: Gallipoli: the assumption was that the Ottoman Empire would be just as shit close to home as it had proven to be throughout the whole of the 19th Century, and for a quite a long time before too.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
But, they ended up fighting Turks who fought very well motivated by nationalism, so it didn't apply, and both the Army/Navy were very complacent, which worked in the Crimea 60 years earlier (just about, despite their failings) but not this time.0 -
The risks were always political more than economic, all things being equal.Sandpit said:
Finally some sense is returning to these experts, after their dire warnings of the apocalypse fooling the Brexit vote turned out to be rubbish.dr_spyn said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "scale of the immediate risks around Brexit have gone down" & risks are greater for Europe than for UK0 -
For decision-making and modeling where you have the luxury of time, I would agree with this.FF43 said:People miss two important things about expert predictions. First is that decisions are going to be made anyway. If you either decide on the facts or on gut feel and prejudice. I would say exposing and challenging your assumptions and reasoning results in better decision making. You can also refine your assumptions and improve your reasoning over time..
However, there is an entire field called naturalistic decision making, which focuses on decision-making in real-world settings of time, resource and other pressures and imperfect information, or wrong 'mental models'.
Collecting data is not always the right decision-making model - if you are a pilot and your plan is going down for unknown reasons and you have only seconds to make a decision, you'd better rely on your experience and gut, rather than gather data for an analytical, evidence-based decision process.
The four basic models for naturalistic decision making are:
-rule-based: for well know situations with multiple states, if this, then that
- choice decisions: where there are multiple options and varying values can be assigned to each option, choice the won that is most beneficial to your values
- creative: where you have no rules or existing options, and have time to gather data and create a solution
- recognition-primed: you recognize the situation from previous experience and react accordingly. If you have no time, for options 1-3 above, and do not recognize the situation, you have to rely on your gut to decide which of your former experiences are closest to the current situation and apply that model.
If you're interested, this is covered extensively in Safety at the Sharp End by Flin, O'Conner and Chricton, and is used extensively in civil aviation in the Crew Resource Management approach. But there is scant else published for the lay person.0 -
Update for those interested in the Stormont situation. The Sinn Fein MLAs all failed to attend committees today. Looks like they are not interested in negotiations this side of an election. By my reckoning, the DUP have four days to stage a humongous climbdown or an election will be on.0
-
Everybody loves a decent game of pass the bombrcs1000 said:
As I said, recognising when a situation is unsustainable is easy. (And the Prime London property market, which I am very heavily invested in, is clearly unsustainable.) Recognising when it will flip is another thing altogether.SeanT said:
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
China clearly does have a growing private sector debt problem, and a capital misallocation problem. Predicting when that will result in a nasty recession is another matter altogether*.
* It's important to remember that China having a nasty recession does not change the long-term growth profile.
0 -
Even in the Big Short, most of the calls about the collapse were too early and almost led to the collapse of the funds making them.Casino_Royale said:
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
Otherwise you are stupid.
cf 'markets can stay irrational longer than you can solvent.'0 -
*coughs*JonathanD said:
Yes, Osborne is very good at the vision thing. If he was involved in Brexit, it would be on a far grander scale than May's defensive, minimisation of (personal) risk effort.Cookie said:
He does. I was never his greatest fan, but I never doubted and am grateful for his commitment to the Northern Powerhouse concept, together with all sorts of other smaller-scale and less well-known initiatives.JonathanD said:
George Osborne has a lot to answer for...Cookie said:On another note, Brexit or not, the current boom in Manchester is incredible and unprecedented. As recently as 18 months ago I heard it argued by development economists here that the Beetham Tower was a one-off, and the economic stars would never align that way again in Manchester - yet we've currently got 7 or 8 100m+ buildings going up, including one 200m+, and dozens more in the pipeline. There has never been such a lot of development going on here. A tower of less than 30 storeys now is barely worth mentioning. I'm not making any predictions about how long it will last, but these are exciting times for the economy in this city.
Travel around the city is a nightmare at the moment though. I wonder how long before congestion charging is suggested again. A shame we can't get an underground system.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/18/is-george-osborne-the-answer-to-brexit/0 -
Dieppe was a test, and a useful one at that, it was never meant to be the real thing. Norway could be argued as serving a very useful strategic value in the overall war, even if it was a lost battle.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, not sure Officer Crabtree would enjoy a game of piss the bum.
Mr. Eagles, so, not in 'every' sense of the word then 0 -
An excellent piece of analysis about a bygone time. Fascinating. Thanksjustin124 said:FPT
Re - Callaghan
He let his party down badly with his misjudgements. He might have won an election in Autumn 1978 - and had he resigned in Autumn 1979 or Spring 1980 he would have been succeeded by Healey.Moreover having made the disastrous election timing error in September 1978 he failed to even try to make up for it by reaching a deal with the Ulster Unionists to save his Government at the time of the No Confidence Vote in March 1979. That was the least he owed his party to make up for his timing cock-up!
Moreover, his failings do not end there. Following the Government's defeat on March 28th , Callaghan could reasonably have delayed Polling Day to June 7th - rather than May 3rd - to coincide with the first direct European Parliament elections. That would have made the Common Market a much more prominent campaign issue at a time when Labour was the more Euro sceptic party and a further gap of five weeks would have elapsed since the Winter Of Discontent. That could well have cut the Tory lead on polling day to 2 or 3% and ensured another Hung Parliament. The Tories would have screamed outrage about such a delay - but there were 19th century precedents and that storm would have passed quickly. Even better ,when in days leading up to the Confidence Vote on 28th March defeat looked likely - as it did! - why did he not troop along to the Palace on March 25th or 26th and ask for a Dissolution to enable an election to be held on June 7th. Had he done that he would have outmanouvred the Tories and the Confidence Vote assumed less significance! Harold Wilson would have thought of such things
0 -
Tillerson says a fair assumption that Putin directed the hacking...0
-
At some point last year, George Osborne was full of praise for Manchester's Chief Executive for presenting well thought out cases for funds from central government. Does the Manchester area really deserve a grandstanding ex minister as Mayor?Cookie said:
No, I agree, he doesn't.dr_spyn said:@Cookie
Not sure if Andy Burnham recognises successes in Manchester he doe see rather busy to ignore them.
https://kingstonelabour.org/2017/01/03/andy-burnham-2016-is-over-it-is-time-to-let-its-rows-and-divisiveness-die-with-it/
After three decades of practical Labour party people running Manchester with the primary aim of making its citizens richer by growing its economy, Andy "He'll do I suppose" Burnham is set to come in with the sole priority of "taking on the Tories". Greater Manchester is unusually well endowed with capable Labour people with good experience at the municipal level, and why the Labour Party have elected to foist that fuckwit on us I cannot comprehend.0 -
My wife and I have to buy a house this year in what I guess is a peripheral part of prime London (Islington). I guess your advice would be to hold off as long as possible? I cannot but agree house prices are unsustainable (and already falling) but not sure how else to get a family home, apart from renting which seems dead money.rcs1000 said:
As I said, recognising when a situation is unsustainable is easy. (And the Prime London property market, which I am very heavily invested in, is clearly unsustainable.) Recognising when it will flip is another thing altogether.SeanT said:
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
China clearly does have a growing private sector debt problem, and a capital misallocation problem. Predicting when that will result in a nasty recession is another matter altogether*.
* It's important to remember that China having a nasty recession does not change the long-term growth profile.0 -
I was joking.JonathanD said:
Even in the Big Short, most of the calls about the collapse were too early and almost led to the collapse of the funds making them.Casino_Royale said:
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.rcs1000 said:
Here's the thing that annoys me about "experts are all wrong". You can recognise when a situation is unsustainable: calling when it flips is very, very hard.Nigelb said:"The savings rate could edge up, which would mean consumption would grow less than incomes. This is the big risk: we are now at record low savings rates of c. 3%, if it were to move back to 6% (which would still be lower than any of our continental peers), then it would likely push us into a recession."
Which goes a long way towards explaining why the 'experts' were wrong, perhaps ?
They were essentially guessing the reaction of the UK consumer to the Brexit vote.
"Unsustainable level"... And how long do you think it might sustain the unsustainable ?
So those who forecast doom based on the savings rate normalising will likely be wrong in the short term, and very right in the medium term. What's an economist to do? What will be the trigger point for people to stop borrowing too much on their credit cards to spend on iPhones? Will it be a rise in interest rates? Or perhaps a fall in house prices (depressing the wealth effect)? Or will it simply continue until interest payments take up too much of household income.
I don't know. No-one knows. As Sean_F points out, human behaviour is unpredictable. Nevertheless, the growth of unsecured credit in the UK and the fall in the savings rate is unsustainable. It's just no-one know when the tipping point comes.
Otherwise you are stupid.
cf 'markets can stay irrational longer than you can solvent.'0 -
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
eh, Men Behaving Badly went on for 4 years, FHM started in 1985 and only finished publishing in 2016 - I guess Nuts (2004 - 2014) is maybe what you're thinking of or perhaps Loaded (1994-2014), Clunes took on the Dr Martin role 6 years after it finished and Bob the sodding builder strongly disagrees with the last sentence.Roger said:FPT. The last time we had a laddish culture in the mid 90's it was amost immediately followed by a period of almost repressive political correctness. It was epitomised in the UK by Men Behaving Badly and the start up of various 'Lads Mags'. It died as quickly as it started. Poor old Martin Clunes had to revive his career by playing a country doctor and the rest of the cast didn't revive their's at all
Is there anything else we can add to this classic piece of Roger?
0 -
I remember eating in a nice pizza place. Can't remember the name, but shouldn't be too hard for you to track down.murali_s said:Any tips guys?
Want a know a classy restaurant in Rome to treat the wife (after putting up with me for a number of years). I've got a few names but just want to cross check amongst you guys since some of you are quite discerning when it comes to restaurant choice.
Many thanks.0 -
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
One of the other issues with experts and pundits is that there are just so many of them. We're approaching the 'million monkeys with typewriters' threshold.
As Cummings mentioned in his rambleathon, we often look through the wrong end of the telescope when assessing outcomes. I'm sure we can easily find optimistic forecasts for the UK economy for 2017, as well as utterly pessimistic ones. Robert's prediction does sit well within the envelope of recent forecasts - World Bank says 1.3%, the OBR & BoE 1.4%.0 -
So an election it isLucian_Fletcher said:Update for those interested in the Stormont situation. The Sinn Fein MLAs all failed to attend committees today. Looks like they are not interested in negotiations this side of an election. By my reckoning, the DUP have four days to stage a humongous climbdown or an election will be on.
0 -
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.0 -
Dal Bolognese, Piazza del Popolo. Superb food. If you can't make your mind up over the fantastic starters, ask the maitre d' to provide a selection. Joyous.murali_s said:Any tips guys?
Want a know a classy restaurant in Rome to treat the wife (after putting up with me for a number of years). I've got a few names but just want to cross check amongst you guys since some of you are quite discerning when it comes to restaurant choice.
Many thanks.
It was a second-hand recommendation, originally from Bryan Ferry.0 -
Chelyabinsk said:
An interesting article would have asked how many of these assumptions were predicated on a Remain vote, and whether the experts changed their views when the results came in.
Quite so.
0 -
Good moaning, Mr Duncer!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, not sure Officer Crabtree would enjoy a game of piss the bum.
Mr. Eagles, so, not in 'every' sense of the word then
I brung you a massage: Political Butting is the best blag on the unternit!0 -
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
Thanks for the update. If, as looks likely, there will be an election, when would it take place - six weeks from next week?Lucian_Fletcher said:Update for those interested in the Stormont situation. The Sinn Fein MLAs all failed to attend committees today. Looks like they are not interested in negotiations this side of an election. By my reckoning, the DUP have four days to stage a humongous climbdown or an election will be on.
0 -
Oh yes, forgot about the Blucher, which was sunk outside Oslo on the first day of the invasion.MTimT said:
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
Strange coincidence regarding German warships called Blucher. The other Blucher from WW1 was also sunk within 9 months of the start of that war.0 -
Yeah....I think I know the one. You could get some really good pasta too, good house wine, profiteroles and a decent expresso and grappa. That should narrow down the search somewhat....SandyRentool said:
I remember eating in a nice pizza place. Can't remember the name, but shouldn't be too hard for you to track down.murali_s said:Any tips guys?
Want a know a classy restaurant in Rome to treat the wife (after putting up with me for a number of years). I've got a few names but just want to cross check amongst you guys since some of you are quite discerning when it comes to restaurant choice.
Many thanks.
0 -
That Manchester Chief Exec has now resigned / retired, in no small part because the borough councils will become district councils, and is being replaced with Wakefield's current one, god help them.dr_spyn said:
At some point last year, George Osborne was full of praise for Manchester's Chief Executive for presenting well thought out cases for funds from central government. Does the Manchester area really deserve a grandstanding ex minister as Mayor?Cookie said:
No, I agree, he doesn't.dr_spyn said:@Cookie
Not sure if Andy Burnham recognises successes in Manchester he doe see rather busy to ignore them.
https://kingstonelabour.org/2017/01/03/andy-burnham-2016-is-over-it-is-time-to-let-its-rows-and-divisiveness-die-with-it/
After three decades of practical Labour party people running Manchester with the primary aim of making its citizens richer by growing its economy, Andy "He'll do I suppose" Burnham is set to come in with the sole priority of "taking on the Tories". Greater Manchester is unusually well endowed with capable Labour people with good experience at the municipal level, and why the Labour Party have elected to foist that fuckwit on us I cannot comprehend.0 -
Mr Dancer, I accept that Dominic Cummings' blogpost was not written in iambic pentameters.0
-
A humongous climbdown being a leadership coup, presumably.Lucian_Fletcher said:Update for those interested in the Stormont situation. The Sinn Fein MLAs all failed to attend committees today. Looks like they are not interested in negotiations this side of an election. By my reckoning, the DUP have four days to stage a humongous climbdown or an election will be on.
But yes, elections almost certain, I'd have thought. I can't imagine that the DUP will allow Sinn Fein to dictate who their leader is.0 -
The old £ is having a bad day, today, nevertheless. Won't be long before we get to 1.20.0
-
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.BannedInParis said:
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.FF43 said:
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).0 -
The peak sales of Nuts were long gone by 2014.BannedInParis said:
eh, Men Behaving Badly went on for 4 years, FHM started in 1985 and only finished publishing in 2016 - I guess Nuts (2004 - 2014) is maybe what you're thinking of or perhaps Loaded (1994-2014), Clunes took on the Dr Martin role 6 years after it finished and Bob the sodding builder strongly disagrees with the last sentence.Roger said:FPT. The last time we had a laddish culture in the mid 90's it was amost immediately followed by a period of almost repressive political correctness. It was epitomised in the UK by Men Behaving Badly and the start up of various 'Lads Mags'. It died as quickly as it started. Poor old Martin Clunes had to revive his career by playing a country doctor and the rest of the cast didn't revive their's at all
Is there anything else we can add to this classic piece of Roger?0 -
Sorry I was unexpected delayed for three days, because, ironically, considering the subject matter, a low pressure area approaching us which we expected to make a bit of rain, got upgraded 12 hours out into a Tropical Depression (lots of rain) and then less than an hour out upgraded again into a Typhoon which took out a couple of electricity distribution pylons on the mainland and left us without power (and pumped water) for three days. Now then what were people saying about the accuracy of weather forecasts, I might have missed it
Waking up to an inch of water on my bedroom floor was also a slight inconvenience! 0 -
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.MTimT said:
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
Mr. Meeks, not to mention there was a disappointing lack of dragons and magic.
[Come to think of it, one book aside I haven't really featured dragons all that much. Hmm].0 -
The army and navy also didn't co-operate properly and Churchill - as FLOTA - didn't have the authority to make the army do so (though the navy could have done a better job too, for example in mine-clearing). But yes, the strategic concept was sound: had the battle fleet forced its way through to Constantinople, it could well have forced the Ottomans out of the war. The mistake that turned a missed chance into a tragedy was in failing to recognise that once the moment had been lost on the first day and hence the chance to charge up the Straights more-or-less closed off, the operation should have been pulled. Several divisions sat on a beach for months was just lunacy.Casino_Royale said:
Re: Gallipoli: the assumption was that the Ottoman Empire would be just as shit close to home as it had proven to be throughout the whole of the 19th Century, and for a quite a long time before too.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
But, they ended up fighting Turks who fought very well motivated by nationalism, so it didn't apply, and both the Army/Navy were very complacent, which worked in the Crimea 60 years earlier (just about, despite their failings) but not this time.0 -
Il Convivio Troianimurali_s said:Any tips guys?
Want a know a classy restaurant in Rome to treat the wife (after putting up with me for a number of years). I've got a few names but just want to cross check amongst you guys since some of you are quite discerning when it comes to restaurant choice.
Many thanks.
Vicolo Dei Soldati 310 -
Astrology exists to give Economics a good name....David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.0 -
I think if I were to give a vlog in poetic format strumming a lute I would unite Leavers and Remainers in disgust.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Meeks, not to mention there was a disappointing lack of dragons and magic.
[Come to think of it, one book aside I haven't really featured dragons all that much. Hmm].0 -
0
-
Hah, very good!dr_spyn said:https://twitter.com/DanielJenks89/status/819179304894558208
Re Burnham, this amused me.0 -
D-Day was a success because the Allies had overwhelming air and sea superiority, a huge mass of material, and sophisticated logistics, most of the German forces were in the East fighting the Russians, and those that were in the West had been successfully deceived that the landings would take place in the Pas de Calais. Also they had excellent access to German communications through ULTRA and successfully sabotaged/captured/destroyed of all the main rapid communication links into Normandy.BannedInParis said:
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.FF43 said:
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Even then, it was very hard wherever there were meaningful fortifications and almost failed entirely at Omaha beach. And there were a few inland battles subsequently that looked dicey until Allied air power and artillery forced back the panzer divisions.
Basically, the Germans were very, very good (from a narrow tactical point of view) in professional land fighting even if it was for a repulsive cause.0 -
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"0 -
So he's following that Trump playbook to a tee.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/8192047326318428160 -
Astrology is not the terminus. Direct from a Court of Appeal judgment from the 1980s:CarlottaVance said:
Astrology exists to give Economics a good name....David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"as a method of providing a reliable guide to individual behaviour patterns, or to future economic and political events, the predictions of an actuary can be only a little more likely to be accurate (and will certainly be less entertaining) than those of an astrologer."0 -
Another Donald Trump? Do you have many nightmares?RobD said:From the Telegraph live blog
"2:49pm
The wrong Michael Cohen
Holes are continuing to emerge in the dossier which has now made headlines around the world.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's lawyer and adviser, has already denied that he was in Prague on the dates mentioned in the document.
Now CNN is reporting that a different Michael Cohen visited Prague on those dates. Maybe a different Donald Trump visited Moscow?"
Titters...
0 -
Weirdly, I told this joke at lunch. You missed the second half.AlsoIndigo said:
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
The man on the ground shouts up:
"And you must be a lawyer"
"Why yes, how did you know?"
"Because you're lost in a balloon and now it's my fault."0 -
Talking up my own book but doesny sound like this confirmation hearing is going well:
"This hour, Tillerson has... 1. Admitted not talking to Trump about Russia. 2. Set Rubio off about Putin. 3. Lied about Exxon lobbying."0 -
Re #peegate - or whatever you call it.
Isn't this rather like the case many years ago where a presidential candidate made ludicrous claims about an opponent, knowing they were untrue but forcing the opponents to mention the ludicrous claims while denying them?
No doubt many here can fill me in (no pun intended) on the circumstances, if true.0 -
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.matt said:
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.MTimT said:
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
You're forgetting Norway.matt said:
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!0 -
-
I thought the man questioned was an accountant.AlsoIndigo said:
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
Anyway, he asked the balloonist if he was a politician. To which he said yes, said that’s typical of politicians. Having got into difficulties by means which you didn’t fully understand you expect a total stranger to give you an easy way out!0 -
I know the same joke but about a consultant. Good to see that we all have something of a sense of humour about our own professions!AlastairMeeks said:
Weirdly, I told this joke at lunch. You missed the second half.AlsoIndigo said:
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
The man on the ground shouts up:
"And you must be a lawyer"
"Why yes, how did you know?"
"Because you're lost in a balloon and now it's my fault."0 -
The classic economic phrase is ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. This is useful if you want to measure what the effect in a model of one change is so you can change the interest rate, for example, and work out what growth will be in different scenarios.
More sophisticated models of course recognise that effect A will cause result B and C which will in turn knock on to D and try to recognise secondary effects. The underlying ceteris paribus assumptions, however, remain even if they are compromised by these effects.
In the real world the ceteris are very much not paribus and there are a whole series of unrelated and usually contradictory things happening at the same time. This makes models very bad at identifying inflection points such as occurred in 2007/8. As Mr Haldane said, as with weather forecasts, the more real world, real time information you can put into your model the better the results should be but we have a very long way to go.
In these circumstances it is somewhat surprising that some of the models get quite as close as they do. I suspect there is more than an element of luck about it in any given year.0 -
This one was quite popular when I was a student.AlsoIndigo said:
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are marooned on an island. They only have one can of beans but no can opener. They have a meeting.
The physicist says: I will throw the can from the tree and it will burst open.
The chemist says: I would be too messy. We will leave it in the sun and the air inside will expand and the can will burst open.
The economist says: Let's assume we have a can opener.0 -
Is it Lyndon Johnson claiming his opponent blows goats?weejonnie said:Re #peegate - or whatever you call it.
Isn't this rather like the case many years ago where a presidential candidate made ludicrous claims about an opponent, knowing they were untrue but forcing the opponents to mention the ludicrous claims while denying them?
No doubt many here can fill me in (no pun intended) on the circumstances, if true.0 -
LBJ, it was a senate race, iirc, he spread rumours that his opponent had carnal relations with pigs, just so his opponent would have to publicly deny he was a pig fucker.weejonnie said:Re #peegate - or whatever you call it.
Isn't this rather like the case many years ago where a presidential candidate made ludicrous claims about an opponent, knowing they were untrue but forcing the opponents to mention the ludicrous claims while denying them?
No doubt many here can fill me in (no pun intended) on the circumstances, if true.0 -
Oh dear, that doesn't sound very good. Hope you manage to get the house back together in short order, and that there isn't too much damage.AlsoIndigo said:Sorry I was unexpected delayed for three days, because, ironically, considering the subject matter, a low pressure area approaching us which we expected to make a bit of rain, got upgraded 12 hours out into a Tropical Depression (lots of rain) and then less than an hour out upgraded again into a Typhoon which took out a couple of electricity distribution pylons on the mainland and left us without power (and pumped water) for three days. Now then what were people saying about the accuracy of weather forecasts, I might have missed it
Waking up to an inch of water on my bedroom floor was also a slight inconvenience!0 -
Economic models are actually quite good. However, it should be read with a +/- factor.DavidL said:The classic economic phrase is ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. This is useful if you want to measure what the effect in a model of one change is so you can change the interest rate, for example, and work out what growth will be in different scenarios.
More sophisticated models of course recognise that effect A will cause result B and C which will in turn knock on to D and try to recognise secondary effects. The underlying ceteris paribus assumptions, however, remain even if they are compromised by these effects.
In the real world the ceteris are very much not paribus and there are a whole series of unrelated and usually contradictory things happening at the same time. This makes models very bad at identifying inflection points such as occurred in 2007/8. As Mr Haldane said, as with weather forecasts, the more real world, real time information you can put into your model the better the results should be but we have a very long way to go.
In these circumstances it is somewhat surprising that some of the models get quite as close as they do. I suspect there is more than an element of luck about it in any given year.0 -
The same reason as 350m was mentioned during BrExit (and possibly once or twice on here), make an outrageous claim and let your opponent spend his own airtime trying to rubbish it, giving the claim plenty of exposure and when he eventually succeeds leaving the lasting impression that there is no smoke without fire.weejonnie said:Re #peegate - or whatever you call it.
Isn't this rather like the case many years ago where a presidential candidate made ludicrous claims about an opponent, knowing they were untrue but forcing the opponents to mention the ludicrous claims while denying them?
No doubt many here can fill me in (no pun intended) on the circumstances, if true.
Sadly politics is going to be full of this for the foreseeable future, because it works. Its a PR persons take on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect0 -
Yes, testing the validity of the model with mid range figures is expecting an absurd level of accuracy given the data available and is where the luck comes in. As an example I am sure that when we get Q4 results we will probably find growth was a tad higher than 2.1%. In a year or two we will probably have revisions showing that it was even higher although it might be struggling to reach my forecast of 2.5% for the year!surbiton said:
Economic models are actually quite good. However, it should be read with a +/- factor.DavidL said:The classic economic phrase is ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. This is useful if you want to measure what the effect in a model of one change is so you can change the interest rate, for example, and work out what growth will be in different scenarios.
More sophisticated models of course recognise that effect A will cause result B and C which will in turn knock on to D and try to recognise secondary effects. The underlying ceteris paribus assumptions, however, remain even if they are compromised by these effects.
In the real world the ceteris are very much not paribus and there are a whole series of unrelated and usually contradictory things happening at the same time. This makes models very bad at identifying inflection points such as occurred in 2007/8. As Mr Haldane said, as with weather forecasts, the more real world, real time information you can put into your model the better the results should be but we have a very long way to go.
In these circumstances it is somewhat surprising that some of the models get quite as close as they do. I suspect there is more than an element of luck about it in any given year.0 -
Also, (related to the Calais deception but also due to Hitler's tactical ineptitude), Rommel and von Rundstedt were prevented from reinforcing the Normandy front with reserves.Casino_Royale said:
D-Day was a success because the Allies had overwhelming air and sea superiority, a huge mass of material, and sophisticated logistics, most of the German forces were in the East fighting the Russians, and those that were in the West had been successfully deceived that the landings would take place in the Pas de Calais. Also they had excellent access to German communications through ULTRA and successfully sabotaged/captured/destroyed of all the main rapid communication links into Normandy.BannedInParis said:
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.FF43 said:
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Even then, it was very hard wherever there were meaningful fortifications and almost failed entirely at Omaha beach. And there were a few inland battles subsequently that looked dicey until Allied air power and artillery forced back the panzer divisions.
Basically, the Germans were very, very good (from a narrow tactical point of view) in professional land fighting even if it was for a repulsive cause.0 -
-
LOL like it.surbiton said:
This one was quite popular when I was a student.AlsoIndigo said:
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:David_Evershed said:
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.Tissue_Price said:A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?"
"Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate"
"Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?"
"Why yes, how did you know ?"
"Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are marooned on an island. They only have one can of beans but no can opener. They have a meeting.
The physicist says: I will throw the can from the tree and it will burst open.
The chemist says: I would be too messy. We will leave it in the sun and the air inside will expand and the can will burst open.
The economist says: Let's assume we have a can opener.0 -
Dave???TheScreamingEagles said:
LBJ, it was a senate race, iirc, he spread rumours that his opponent had carnal relations with pigs, just so his opponent would have to publicly deny he was a pig fucker.weejonnie said:Re #peegate - or whatever you call it.
Isn't this rather like the case many years ago where a presidential candidate made ludicrous claims about an opponent, knowing they were untrue but forcing the opponents to mention the ludicrous claims while denying them?
No doubt many here can fill me in (no pun intended) on the circumstances, if true.0 -
Das war ein Befehl!david_herdson said:
Also, (related to the Calais deception but also due to Hitler's tactical ineptitude), Rommel and von Rundstedt were prevented from reinforcing the Normandy front with reserves.Casino_Royale said:
D-Day was a success because the Allies had overwhelming air and sea superiority, a huge mass of material, and sophisticated logistics, most of the German forces were in the East fighting the Russians, and those that were in the West had been successfully deceived that the landings would take place in the Pas de Calais. Also they had excellent access to German communications through ULTRA and successfully sabotaged/captured/destroyed of all the main rapid communication links into Normandy.BannedInParis said:
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.FF43 said:
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.Cookie said:In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six.
This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed.
The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles.
On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed.
I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Even then, it was very hard wherever there were meaningful fortifications and almost failed entirely at Omaha beach. And there were a few inland battles subsequently that looked dicey until Allied air power and artillery forced back the panzer divisions.
Basically, the Germans were very, very good (from a narrow tactical point of view) in professional land fighting even if it was for a repulsive cause.0 -
Did I read the sky news ticker right? Mark Carney said that Brexit now poses a bigger financial risk to the E.U instead of us? LOL.0
-
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.david_herdson said:
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.matt said:
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.MTimT said:
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:0 -
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/819214553078702080
I think the next German government will be CDU/CSU-Green, with or without the FDP.0 -
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?Casino_Royale said:
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.david_herdson said:
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.matt said:
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.MTimT said:
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.matt said:
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.Carolus_Rex said:
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been.
WWII was a different matter entirely.0 -
He is a very good Governor and has made few mistakes since the vote - maybe the interest rate cut was not needed but otherwise pretty good.Casino_Royale said:
I know I am one, but I bet a few Leavers now start to like Carney for that!dr_spyn said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "scale of the immediate risks around Brexit have gone down" & risks are greater for Europe than for UK0
