tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post9167555364802503936..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Experts and ElitesMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-64879151450641081322018-12-04T21:24:07.253+00:002018-12-04T21:24:07.253+00:00Here's a challenge. Go through the European te...Here's a challenge. Go through the European territories that have self-government and look at the ones which since the 2nd world war have never been communist and never been members of the EU. Then come back and tell your readers which one of them is worse off ( GNP/head by PPP will do ) than its nearest EU neighbour.Andrew Careyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442714147160589939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-75062655461322344422018-12-04T09:39:55.374+00:002018-12-04T09:39:55.374+00:00What would no trust look like? The public may say ...What would no trust look like? The public may say they 'trust' Professors (lets use science) but the Professor are having very little effect on the public debate. The scare around vaccines, the inaction on climate change, GM food, and the headlong pursuit of Brexit which will implode much of science are all mass delusions that science has failed to save us from. In actual fact Greenpeace or Monsanto have had much more impact. Its part of wider narrative that facts do not matter its what one feels. I was at public event, where a young person said they hated people being negative about their country, why could we not just all agree with each other and make Brexit a success after all Britain was a great country. Another went off on how Britain is the worst most unfair, exploitative racist country on the earth (presumably in a calmer moment they would have put Britain second to the US). Both suffer the same delusion, that of exceptionalism.Uncle Abehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06275542135616491069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-75525745162844042722018-12-03T14:39:55.283+00:002018-12-03T14:39:55.283+00:00The economic profession has only itself to blame f...The economic profession has only itself to blame for the lack of trust by the public. It is a disgrace the way the profession is completely politicized and/or sold to the highest bidder.<br /><br />Case in point:<br />Current deal / no deal economic projections, I quote the BBC 28-11-2018:<br />"Official figures say the UK economy could be up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years under Theresa May's Brexit plan, compared with staying in the EU.<br />But a no-deal Brexit could deliver a 9.3% hit, the new estimates say."<br /><br />So official figures say the UK will be, on average, up to 0.26% poorer per year for a period of 15 years with May-deal and 0.62% with No-deal compared with full EC membership.<br />This is quite frankly ridiculous and laughable. Sorry about that. These forecasts fall effectively within the error margin for any standard economic yearly economic forecast in the UK. It is pure farce and fraud to pretend that these figures show a clear Brexit effect in the economy as opposed to any white noise of year to year economic variation, or any other so far unreported long term economic phenomenon.<br /><br />In reality what these forecasts tell is that economists are NOT able to indicate clearly what is the economic benefit or otherwise of the UK's presence within the EU. <br />If this analysis is the best that mainstream economic experts have to base their "learned opinion" that the EU is good for the British economy then I'm afraid that their opinion can only be classified by an honest outside viewer as mere Dogma. Lowlanderhttp://www.oie.intnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15573731940921121702018-12-03T11:20:39.493+00:002018-12-03T11:20:39.493+00:00Mark Carney discredited himself with his ridiculou...Mark Carney discredited himself with his ridiculous comic performances and lies. His repeated lies about when he would put rates up. "Forward Guidance". Without knowing more as he's not worth your or my time and to defend him cos a buffoon like Rees-Mogg says something - mine enemy's enemy too far.<br /><br />Credit for Blair/Brown and the PFI, the asset bubbles, debt, slow growth, low investment, etc etc. The creation of asset stripped zombie companies running public services, the charging for hospital car parking etc etc all stem from Labour's policies. Label it neo Liberal or mainstream academic thought.<br /><br />Preferring transfer payments (to be removed when the economy turned) to actually changing anything. You can blame others but as Leveson/Fake Sheikh debacle showed the vile media atmosphere was caused by Labour leaders being close friends with Coulson, Murdoch, Dacre, Brookes et al Experts? & led in part to BrExit.<br /><br />The harrying of the poor at dole offices, insecure employment, debt debt and more debt, land/property prices, a lack of focus on anti trust and banker loving - to de facto support Brown and Balls and their love of deregulation, financialisation and no such thing as fraud from the blame for GFC is rationalisation? In a satire of Labour Malcolm Tucker said "get another expert" to the minister. I find a defense of that amoral regime hard to reconcile. <br /><br />Economics can forecast differences but not actual growth? That's a tough sell true or not to non experts. The 3-4% over 10 years (May's plan) (some other productivity factor might make it greater accepted) of leaving the EU (a moral choice for me having voted remain to avoid disruption to not leave now as EZ crushes democracy is pretty unprincipled IMO esp over less than the economic policy missteps and shocks of the last 40 years: oil shock:3 day week: Big Bang: 0 city regulation: austerity supported by all 3 mains in 10 & 15: Winter of discontent: Howe's budgets £ to $2.47 back to 1.08 in 3 years: Lawson: EMS: Gulf War:Tech bubble. And even stuff that counts as growth in GDP but does not make people's living standards better).bedfonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08734407435275515547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26452220678301812122018-12-03T10:53:33.944+00:002018-12-03T10:53:33.944+00:00Most forecasts that people are interested in are u...Most forecasts that people are interested in are unconditional, that is they forecast the whole economy. The concept of risk may be more readily applied to a conditional forecast but a forecast of the whole economy must surely fall into the category of uncertainty. There may be a lack of understanding about what forecasts are but forecasts about where the economy will be in fifteen years time are presented as authorative whereas they are not; they are little more than speculation.<br /><br />In 1971 the government issued a White Paper on EEC entry (Cmnd 4715). They made no predictions about where the economy would be in the long term because it was wholly dependent on how firms and individuals reacted to the changed circumstances (See paras 45-48). Now you might argue that that was nearly fifty years ago and we are more sophisticated; but that would be sophistry; we still do not know how Brexit would pan out over the next forty years. Mervyn King, in a recent interview on Bloomberg said in his view it would make very little difference.<br />Robert Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03593742130088640939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-57640568644533759492018-12-03T10:27:03.702+00:002018-12-03T10:27:03.702+00:00an explanation of the paradox would be that the pu...an explanation of the paradox would be that the public trust academics' integrity but not their judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-24542407598187611012018-12-03T03:10:04.555+00:002018-12-03T03:10:04.555+00:00“Many journalists do not understand the difference...“Many journalists do not understand the difference between these kind of forecasts (‘unconditional’) and the kind of analysis presented on the economic effects of Brexit (‘conditional’). The analogy I tend to use is between a doctor telling you that you are more likely to die of a heart attack if you eat too much fat (‘conditional’), and a doctor trying to predict your exact time of getting a heart attack (‘unconditional’)."<br /><br />It is disingenuous to criticise journalists when neither the Treasury nor Professor Sir Charles Dean make this distinction.<br /><br />This is what the Treasury say in the document “HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU” as endorsed by Professor Dean.<br /><br />“A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.”<br /><br />No conditionality there and very little throughout the report. What conditionality there is in the report is all on the downside. I challenge anyone to find any explicit upside conditionality. <br /> <br />The report starts with the statement.<br /> <br />“To inform the decision that the British people will make on whether the United Kingdom (UK) should remain a member of the European Union (EU), this document provides a comprehensive, rigorous and objective analysis of the immediate impact of a vote to leave.”<br /><br />Yet, what little conditionality there is in report would lead a layman reader to conclude that any delay in the Brexit process would lead to a worse economic outcome. Despite this, when the Treasury subsequently disowned their forecasts, they told us that it was because their model had not allowed for a possible delay in invoking Article 50.<br /><br />The bottom line is that the Treasury predicted a recession, they predicted a rise in unemployment of between 520,000 and 820,000 and a fall in house prices of between 10% and 18% within the 2 year period after a referendum vote for leaving the EU. Last week the Government published the document ‘EU Exit’ Long-term Analysis’. The first two sentences state the following.<br /><br />“As the UK leaves the European Union it does so with strong economic fundamentals. The economy is growing, unemployment is low and real wages are rising.”<br />TeeJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02894564884420913780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-66740008644196481542018-12-02T19:29:31.401+00:002018-12-02T19:29:31.401+00:00A hard Brexit crashout would be a sudden discontin...A hard Brexit crashout would be a sudden discontinuity in day-to-day business operations. Models that assume continuity are less likely to be accurate than informed common sense. Andy Haldane of the Bank talks to businessmen, as Alfred Marshall did before him. I therefore give his forecasts more credibility than the conventional modelling of say Paul Krugman. <br /><br />Dover docks on Day 1 will be chaos. The customs software and new rule book won't be ready. A policy of waving everything through does not solve the symmetrical problem for the French customs at Calais. The window for fixing the problem is short, before just-in-time factories and warehouses close their doors. <br /><br />At the other key border at Dundalk, the risk is of the chaos turning violent. Again, the time-frame is short. James Wimberleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10039653150309817093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-17670006063188991352018-12-02T15:20:04.027+00:002018-12-02T15:20:04.027+00:00"It is predominantly a failure of the media r..."It is predominantly a failure of the media rather than economists themselves" <br /><br />I disagree. Economists know that their comments will be distorted to suit the political ends of the media. It is ultimately their responsibility to communicate clearly and say things which are not ripe for misrepresentation. <br /><br />One simple way to win back respect is to have larger error bands around forecasts. Point estimates convey a false sense of certainty which in the long run undermine public trust. <br /><br />Perhaps the problem with academics is that they speak in a language that doesn't resonate with the average voter. For example, you don't often hear the average voter saying "I voted conservative because their policies will raise trend real GDP growth by 56bps a year". <br /><br />James Peachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79725480703776662662018-12-02T13:55:46.387+00:002018-12-02T13:55:46.387+00:00it seems obvious that attacks on experts come not ...it seems obvious that attacks on experts come not from the neoliberal right but from the neonationalist right. indeed the neoliberal right are often the "experts" being attacked on the virtues of trade, migration, free enterprise, &c. moreover, it's not just that experts were wrong in that what they expected to be immediate occurred gradually; they were categorically wrong about the nature of Brexit consequences altogether. differences in great enough degree become differences in kind: chronic back pain, while miserable, is not death. at issue is experts marketing of themselves using exaggerations and sky-falling predictions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-9641213847790790392018-12-02T11:54:50.319+00:002018-12-02T11:54:50.319+00:00Reinforcing your comments, my experience is that p...Reinforcing your comments, my experience is that people genuinely believe that media are "not allowed" to print fabrications and untruths, so they blindly believe what they read. I have even had quotes in all seriousness that could be traced to spoof readers' letters in Viz Comic. No wonder it's easy to rubbish expert advice if it suits your purpose (and, of course, the reader's).Keith Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10245268369782038377noreply@blogger.com