tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post46999326712938324..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: How BBC balance and bad think tanks discourage evidence based policyMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91126327298715613442018-08-21T16:57:12.129+00:002018-08-21T16:57:12.129+00:00So the Treasury admits that it made the wrong assu...So the Treasury admits that it made the wrong assumptions when forecasting the short term effects of Brexit. Clearly then the BBC when reporting on long term forecasts for Brexit should act under the assumption that the forecasts may also be based upon spurious assumptions and that the actual outcome may be vastly different from those forecasts. It would be failing in its public duty to do otherwise.TeeJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02894564884420913780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26015502729111821332018-08-20T21:11:05.802+00:002018-08-20T21:11:05.802+00:00I was aware of Tom Scholar's remarks, which is...I was aware of Tom Scholar's remarks, which is why I wrote that the Treasury's excuses for their poor predictions are laughable.TeeJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02894564884420913780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-77232633022483889862018-08-09T10:09:14.920+00:002018-08-09T10:09:14.920+00:00This is a Reuters report on the post-Brexit foreca...This is a Reuters report on the post-Brexit forecast from the Treasury:<br /><br />The top official at Britain’s [Treasury, Tom Scholar,] said his department’s forecasts of a big hit to the economy from Brexit, made shortly before the June 2016 EU membership referendum, were no longer applicable.<br /><br />Brexit supporters have long criticised the projections as part of a “Project Fear” they say was led by former prime minister David Cameron and his then-Chancellor George Osborne.<br /><br />The forecasts said that within 15 years Britain’s economy could be between 3.4 and 9.5 percent smaller if it left the EU than if it had stayed in.<br /><br />Tom Scholar told lawmakers on Wednesday the forecasts were based on an assumption that Britain would immediately start the process of leaving the European Union, and they did not include any stimulus measures for the economy.<br /><br />In fact, Britain took nine months to launch the Brexit process and the Bank of England pumped in stimulus shortly after the vote. Last November, the government announced measures which were also aimed at helping the economy.<br /><br />“The third (factor) I would say is that the global economy has recovered much more strongly ...than we expected at the time,” Scholar said.<br /><br />Britain’s economy has withstood the Brexit vote shock better than most private economists expected, but it has lagged behind growth rates achieved in other advanced economies.<br /><br />Speaking to the Treasury Committee in the [House of Commons], Scholar also said the forecasts were based on three potential scenarios for Britain’s future relationship outside the EU, but not the one that British Prime Minister Theresa May wants: a tailor-made trade deal with the bloc.<br /><br />“I don’t think the pre-referendum analysis is useful in the current debate about our attempts to secure a deep and special partnership because that’s a different thing to any of the three scenarios that were illustrated in that paper,” he said.<br />Pendragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601150248986844828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-18769573324540604772018-08-04T07:51:27.955+00:002018-08-04T07:51:27.955+00:00As an Aussie, its very interesting that the IEA ha...As an Aussie, its very interesting that the IEA has taken tobacco compnany money to argue against plain packaging. Because its Antipodean counterpart did exactly the same (remembering that Australia was the first country to do plain packaging legislation). I think you're being very generous in saying they were sincere in their arguments.<br /><br />Your point about funding transparency is very clear in Australia. There are two signifcant thinktanks on the right here - the Institute for Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies. The IPA is notorious for talking its funder's book, the CIS has a reputation for being ideological but precisely on that account having integrity (think pre-Koch Cato in the US). The CIS gets some traction with academics and policy wonks but it is the IPA that is really listened to by tory politicians.<br /><br />Of course, that is precisely because they know there are very rich and powerful people behind the IPA, not true believers in markets.derrida deriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01188777386180390172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-24650939370917142612018-08-03T10:57:09.147+00:002018-08-03T10:57:09.147+00:00Only today the Guardian published an article sugge...Only today the Guardian published an article suggesting that even in respect of climate change the BBC still thinks it necessary to "balance" any discussion of the subject with a climate change denier like Nigel Lawson. So I don't think its attitude to so-called balance is limited to economics. Perhap because of its fear of politicians the BBC has relegated its duty to inform to niche programmes like "More or Less" and "Inside ScienceGrahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06009542948966411498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-13056178478559736282018-08-03T04:21:25.678+00:002018-08-03T04:21:25.678+00:00"The BBC overcame this problem valiantly duri..."The BBC overcame this problem valiantly during Brexit, using Patrick Minford (who is not known as a trade economist) time and again to balance the IMF, the OECD, more than 90% of academic opinion etc."<br /><br />Both sides made errors on forecasting the short term consequences of Brexit. But Minford's forecasts were closer to what actually happened. If you believe in evidence based social science, as you state, then you should accept this fact. I don't see how the BBC can be criticised on this issue.<br /><br />The Treasury short term forecasts for Brexit have now been exposed as a poor joke. Their excuses for this are laughable. They had their 'Michael Fish' moment but unlike the Met Office they haven't gone back to basics and started again.TeeJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02894564884420913780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-59689292709129346002018-08-01T13:31:53.958+00:002018-08-01T13:31:53.958+00:00I think the media are better informed than you thi...I think the media are better informed than you think. This is an arrogant post. Before the financial crisis the media did look up to economists. So did New Labour. In fact until 2008 economists got pretty much what they wanted. We have seen the result. Now there is a growing realisation of what even some economists(particularly those who are genuinely multidisciplinary in their approaches) openly admit: economists don't know much. Until then journalists are wise to be cautious of what economists say and field widely for opinion, especially when economists say things like "there is a consensus in the economist profession..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-4963671798282198982018-08-01T13:26:57.301+00:002018-08-01T13:26:57.301+00:00I think you view is too purist.?I'm sure you a...I think you view is too purist.?I'm sure you are right in some respects but you implicitly assume that "good" think tanks are not politically biased whereas this is almost certainly no true. A segregation of think tanks as you suggest may improve things but I doubt if it is a total solution to the issue of bias.<br /><br />A further point is that you seem to implicitly assume that the target audience is unable to sift through these issues themselves. It seems odd to assume that policy makers are not able to sort the wheat from the chaff here as you have done in your piece.<br /><br />The other problem with these sorts of rule is: where does it end? before you know it there is a host of rules to fulfil and this might be tantamount to a form of censorship. Are we not better off with very few rules with a maximum of freedom and apply caveat emptor? Robert Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03593742130088640939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-90989726710561019332018-08-01T11:16:04.314+00:002018-08-01T11:16:04.314+00:00For those interested in knowledge and its transmis...For those interested in knowledge and its transmission, this raises a large red warning flag... "To be clear I am not suggesting that the IEA (who have been in the news recently) is insincere about the arguments it makes, but if funding was transparent it would be very easy to suggest their arguments on plain packaging were contrived by just pointing out its funding sources." To my mind, rather than 'very easy' this should read 'all too easy' because instead of actually examining the evidence base used and the quality of analysis, those for whom the conclusion is unpalatable need 'just' point out the funding source to dismiss the conclusion regardless of any evidence proffered or the analysis of it. So, ironically, that *is* an obvious reason to keep funding secret. I'm no apologist for the IEA and indeed I wrote a highly-critical blog on their response to the Uber Employment Tribunal decision https://medium.com/@StrongerInNos/is-everything-alright-hun-dbb907cb6e60 Of course it's reasonable to ask 'cui bono' and it might even be reasonable to think it necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient to come to any judgement on the work itself. Michael O'Connorhttps://twitter.com/StrongerInNosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-63056642997998706692018-08-01T10:36:10.539+00:002018-08-01T10:36:10.539+00:00I used to edit a small trade publication. It was d...I used to edit a small trade publication. It was distributed f.o.c., so our revenue depended entirely on advertising; we'd have a few clients who you could rely on to take space in every issue and a lot more who would come in three or four times a year. So you'd rotate through them; if Fred had booked last month you'd leave him alone for a while, if George hadn't been in touch for six months you'd give him a call.<br /><br />But the magazine didn't consist entirely of advertising - and my job was to fill the remaining space with news items and features. From the outset I was under huge pressure (direct and indirect, i.e. budgetary) to organise issues around advertising, to tailor features to make major advertisers look good, to take features supplied by companies' PR departments, to disguise advertorial as genuine features, and so on. Some requests I resisted, others - perhaps more than I'd like to think - I went along with; it's how that world works.<br /><br />I tend to see the IEA in a similar light; not as a research institute which happens to have commercial backers, but as a commercial publishing operation which happens to employ researchers. I imagine that they have a roster of funders (just as we had a roster of advertisers) and rotate through them, producing research to suit (just as we produced features to suit our advertisers). Transparency should be the least we can expect, but in this case I suspect it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.com