"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 ?
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.
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.
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 UK
Finally some sense is returning to these experts, after their dire warnings of the apocalypse fooling the Brexit vote turned out to be rubbish.
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 UK
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....
Scepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method, though we have to be careful not to conflate healthy scepticism with mere cynicism.
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.
Given your posting name, are you in the nuclear or environment industry?
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
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
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.
"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 ?
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.
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.
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.
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.
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 UK
I know I am one, but I bet a few Leavers now start to like Carney for that!
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
"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 ?
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.
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.
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.
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.
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.
Paul Joseph Watson Buzzfeed just published more shocking revelations about Trump. This is not fake at all.
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.
Buzzfeed have issued strong health warnings with the publication of the document which could be a scam.
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.
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.
But Andy has never kissed a Tory™, so he's the right man for the job.
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.
George Osborne has a lot to answer for...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 UK
Finally some sense is returning to these experts, after their dire warnings of the apocalypse fooling the Brexit vote turned out to be rubbish.
The risks were always political more than economic, all things being equal.
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..
For decision-making and modeling where you have the luxury of time, I would agree with this.
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.
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.
"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 ?
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.
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.
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.
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.
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.
"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 ?
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.
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.
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.
Otherwise you are stupid.
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.
cf 'markets can stay irrational longer than you can solvent.'
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.
George Osborne has a lot to answer for...
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.
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.
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.
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
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.
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
An excellent piece of analysis about a bygone time. Fascinating. Thanks
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.
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?
"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 ?
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.
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.
"Experts" have predicted 19 of the last 2 slumps in the London property market, and 8 out of zero collapses in the Chinese economy.
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.
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.
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.
"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 ?
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.
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.
No. If you call it right like in The Big Short you are a secret genius.
Otherwise you are stupid.
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.
cf 'markets can stay irrational longer than you can solvent.'
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
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
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.
Is there anything else we can add to this classic piece of Roger?
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.
I remember eating in a nice pizza place. Can't remember the name, but shouldn't be too hard for you to track down.
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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%.
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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.
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.
It was a second-hand recommendation, originally from Bryan Ferry.
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.
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
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.
Thanks for the update. If, as looks likely, there will be an election, when would it take place - six weeks from next week?
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
Oh yes, forgot about the Blucher, which was sunk outside Oslo on the first day of the invasion.
Strange coincidence regarding German warships called Blucher. The other Blucher from WW1 was also sunk within 9 months of the start of that war.
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.
I remember eating in a nice pizza place. Can't remember the name, but shouldn't be too hard for you to track down.
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....
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.
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?
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.
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.
A humongous climbdown being a leadership coup, presumably.
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.
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
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.
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.
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.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
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
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.
Is there anything else we can add to this classic piece of Roger?
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!
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
Astrology exists to give Economics a good name....
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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 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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
Astrology exists to give Economics a good name....
Astrology is not the terminus. Direct from a Court of Appeal judgment from the 1980s:
"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."
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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"
Weirdly, I told this joke at lunch. You missed the second half.
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."
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.
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!
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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"
I thought the man questioned was an accountant.
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!
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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"
Weirdly, I told this joke at lunch. You missed the second half.
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."
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!
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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"
This one was quite popular when I was a student.
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.
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.
Is it Lyndon Johnson claiming his opponent blows goats?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Economic models are actually quite good. However, it should be read with a +/- factor.
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.
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.
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.
Economic models are actually quite good. However, it should be read with a +/- factor.
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!
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
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:
"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"
This one was quite popular when I was a student.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
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.
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.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
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.
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.
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.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
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 UK
I know I am one, but I bet a few Leavers now start to like Carney for that!
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.
Comments
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.
"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...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/11/wrong-number-louisiana-man-texts-deputy-about-meth-delivery-sheriff-says.html
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
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.
Otherwise you are stupid.
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.
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.
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.
Twenty thousand words, epic? *raises an eyebrow*
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.
The modal PB thread is around 600-800 words long.
The longest one I've published is 1,800 words long.
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.
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.
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.
cf 'markets can stay irrational longer than you can solvent.'
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/18/is-george-osborne-the-answer-to-brexit/
Mr. Eagles, so, not in 'every' sense of the word then
Is there anything else we can add to this classic piece of Roger?
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%.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
It was a second-hand recommendation, originally from Bryan Ferry.
Quite so.
I brung you a massage: Political Butting is the best blag on the unternit!
Strange coincidence regarding German warships called Blucher. The other Blucher from WW1 was also sunk within 9 months of the start of that war.
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.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
[Come to think of it, one book aside I haven't really featured dragons all that much. Hmm].
Vicolo Dei Soldati 31
Re Burnham, this amused me.
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.
"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"
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/819204732631842816
"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."
Despite Brexit
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."
"This hour, Tillerson has... 1. Admitted not talking to Trump about Russia. 2. Set Rubio off about Putin. 3. Lied about Exxon lobbying."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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_effect
http://news.sky.com/story/liberty-house-saves-740-automotive-jobs-in-covpress-rescue-10724537
I think the next German government will be CDU/CSU-Green, with or without the FDP.
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been.
WWII was a different matter entirely.