Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But they're experts?

What's your point? You haven't even read the paper.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

What's your point? You haven't even read the paper.

It's Cambridge University? 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's Cambridge University? 

Jesus Christ.

[Webbo]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Jesus Christ.

There's a Jesus College and a Christ College, I'm not sure which it was.

[Guest Kopfkino]

52 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html

 

It's almost as if Alan Winter hasn't read the paper because what they've said is gravity models need more care than they believe has been afforded, they haven'tcompletely dismissed it off hand. They query about the use of the productivity-trade relationship used which on balance looks a fair question to ask.I can't see that Winter has at any point elaborated on why he disagrees with that point. Once you take that assumption out, the CBR's forecast "is also not very different from that of CEP, as long as the productivity knock-on effect is omitted". I really don't think it's too much for the two CEP economists to then defend their productivity-trade relationship assumption.  I mean does it make sense to use a productivity-trade relationship formulated with a large amount of data from emerging economies (advanced as well) over a period that is now 20+ years out of date? And then to deliberately choose the higher estimate. Your guess is as good as mine, but I don't see the issue in asking the question if that proves to be the main reason for divergence from your own forecast.

 

It's hardly as if their prediction is that there won't be any harmful effects, just a question of magnitude. And its interested they're not far off Sadiq's report, given that would, I'm sure, feature if asked to cite evidence that Brexit will do damage (it did gain a lot of traction at the start of the year). I just don't see why there was a need to go so defensive rather than confront questions posed. The CBR is hardly an outlier in the same way Minford's lot are. "The economic forecasting profession needs to ‘think it possible ye may be mistaken’".

[Webbo]

It's amazing. We get reports saying Brexit will be a disaster, we say it's rubbish and we get "how can you argue with experts?" We quote experts who say the economists are wrong, which is backed up by the fact that none of what they've said has come true and all of a sudden these experts don't know what they're talking about. It's as if the remainers only believe stuff that suits their prejudices?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's amazing. We get reports saying Brexit will be a disaster, we say it's rubbish and we get "how can you argue with experts?" We quote experts who say the economists are wrong, which is backed up by the fact that none of what they've said has come true and all of a sudden these experts don't know what they're talking about. It's as if the remainers only believe stuff that suits their prejudices?

The report you are trying to sell calculated its own estimate giving GDP as 2% lower over time. That is almost £40b per year and rising.

If you think that's good news I'd hate to see what you think is bad.

[Rogstanley]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's amazing. We get reports saying Brexit will be a disaster, we say it's rubbish and we get "how can you argue with experts?" We quote experts who say the economists are wrong, which is backed up by the fact that none of what they've said has come true and all of a sudden these experts don't know what they're talking about. It's as if the remainers only believe stuff that suits their prejudices?

Nobody has ever denied that some economists don't think the effects will be as bad as others do, Webbo. The vast majority think it will be negative. Some think it will be very negative, others, like the authors of the study you posted without reading, think it'll be negative but not quite as bad as some others are predicting. A handful of economists think it will be positive, though they usually speak from the perspective of GDP growth rather than more meaningful measures like wages. So what exactly is your point, if it isn't already covered above?

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's amazing. We get reports saying Brexit will be a disaster, we say it's rubbish and we get "how can you argue with experts?" We quote experts who say the economists are wrong, which is backed up by the fact that none of what they've said has come true and all of a sudden these experts don't know what they're talking about. It's as if the remainers only believe stuff that suits their prejudices?

1

...or they make the point that none of the studies - positive, negative, otherwise -  can really be trusted...

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The report you are trying to sell calculated its own estimate giving GDP as 2% lower over time. That is almost £40b per year and rising.

If you think that's good news I'd hate to see what you think is bad.

That’s about what we’ve just shaved on off the deficit with the new dividends tax, what with the extra £8.8b we get back from not paying membership to the EU we will be well in the black. Make the rich pay for brexit 

[Webbo]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...or they make the point that none of the studies - positive, negative, otherwise -  can really be trusted...

I wouldn't argue with that.

[lifted*fox]

FRIDGE FREEZERS

[Wymsey]

[Vardinio'sCat]

12 hours ago, Milo said:

Honestly, the only thing that I accept is that the experts are likely to have an agenda, one way or another, and their models will reflect that agenda. 

 

The amount of noise is incredible, and if there is a truth, then it is drowned out. 

 

Where do you go when you are ill? I go to the doctor myself...

 

Agree about the noise though. Once a subject becomes seriously politicised things do become more difficult, so when  I go to the doctor in recent times, I have a suspicion they are looking for the cheapest option, rather than what is best for me medically.

 

I have kind of contradicted myself here, so perhaps I should have kept my trap shut. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Where do you go when you are ill? I go to the doctor myself...

 

Agree about the noise though. Once a subject becomes seriously politicised things do become more difficult, so when  I go to the doctor in recent times, I have a suspicion they are looking for the cheapest option, rather than what is best for me medically.

 

I have kind of contradicted myself here, so perhaps I should have kept my trap shut. 

Also, there's a difference between experts in softer sciences and those in harder ones - the sad problem is that the two are getting rather conflated these days.

[Vardinio'sCat]

8 hours ago, Milo said:

Yep. 

 

It's an extraordinarily emotive subject - people who want to remain want to remain, and people who want to leave want to leave. 

 

Nothing much seems to change the others mind, a lot of debates descend into name calling and stat-waving. Neither of which is particularly helpful and often polarises people further. 

 

The line that 'it is a fact' that things will be worse if we leave is annoying. Just as annoying as people saying that it's a fact that life will be better if we stay. 

 

Truth is nobody knows. Experts, politicians, joe public, FT members or my dog. 

 

Surely you accept that our trade with the EU will be adversely affected though, even TM finally admitted that.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Where do you go when you are ill? I go to the doctor myself...

 

Agree about the noise though. Once a subject becomes seriously politicised things do become more difficult, so when  I go to the doctor in recent times, I have a suspicion they are looking for the cheapest option, rather than what is best for me medically.

 

I have kind of contradicted myself here, so perhaps I should have kept my trap shut. 

The thing is the impact of brexit can never be truly measured because both scenarios can’t happen only one can. So it’s easy to make comparisons against something that can’t be absolutely proved either way. Whilst I’ve no doubt there is some merit to the early forecasts, I don’t see how you can accurately or even ball park figures into 2030 with any real merit.

[Vardinio'sCat]

6 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

It's really not a dreadful idea.  More homes are needed in the South East.  If a new motorway is added connecting Oxford and Cambridge then that would link two major research hubs all commutable into London.

 

Yes, it's annoying that the country is London centric, but that's the reality and houses need to be built to reduce the ridiculous situation in London prices relative to wages.

 

Granted, it shouldn't be either or, as investment should be in other areas of the country, but right now, if the biggest pressures are on the South East, it makes sense to concentrate resources there.

 

The relative spending on infrastructure is a disgrace, imho. If there were more investment outside London, things would work much better.

[Vardinio'sCat]

4 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The Conservatives pledged to move public sector workers in their manifesto. The Centre for Cities then looked at the economic effect the ONS's and the BBC's moves have had (being they both moved a large amount of highly-skilled jobs). I'm pretty sure in the case of the ONS it appears there's been little impact beyond the jobs themselves while there has possibly been a fall in the quality of output. In the case of the BBC, they said there has been little benefit beyond MediaCity itself (and that benefit came largely through displacement).

 

Of course it can largely depend on the activity being relocated and what the place can offer (maybe the ONS to Newport is the wrong thing to the wrong place). But wherever it is, what really is the point when the high-skilled staff will inevitably end up having to be in London 3 times a week for meetings etc. 

 

Both Manchester and Birminham are pretty vibrant, I think London is turning into a ghetto for rich folks.

[Vardinio'sCat]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

But they're experts?

 

Well, an expert led bunfight is probably more illuminating than a non-expert one.

 

I must admit the Cambridge report had me scratching my head, but now I understand what a gravity model is I'm more comfortable.

 

The only real world criticism (of the gravity model) I can think of is the empty shipping containers going back to China, because we might be able to fill the odd one at very little cost.

[Vardinio'sCat]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The thing is the impact of brexit can never be truly measured because both scenarios can’t happen only one can. So it’s easy to make comparisons against something that can’t be absolutely proved either way. Whilst I’ve no doubt there is some merit to the early forecasts, I don’t see how you can accurately or even ball park figures into 2030 with any real merit.

 

Whilst I agree it is more difficult the further you go into the future, I think we need as much good quality information as possible.

 

All forecasts come with caveats, error bars and the like, and the precision reduces as you get further into the future, as you suggest. My favourite forecasters, and probably the most respected independent voice in the UK, are the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). Their analysis of the Budget (the following day) is almost as keenly awaited as the Budget itself, and they are respected by all sides.

 

They used to be headed up by the authoratitive Robert Chote, who is now in charge of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). It is now run by Paul Johnson, and between the IFS and the OBR you will generally get a pretty conservative (small c) and sober assessment. You would probably recognise both of them from the talking heads at budget time.

 

Suffice to say Leavers were not very happy with their predictions before the referendum, and attacked their work, but they are mainly focusing on trade outcomes now, as the negotiations start to hot up.

 

If they are given such weight at budget time I see no reason to ignore them now. This is the most recent thing I could find from them about Brexit.

 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10354

 

 

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Also, there's a difference between experts in softer sciences and those in harder ones - the sad problem is that the two are getting rather conflated these days.

 

True enough, it can be painful the way science is represented, especially in politicised areas. But if we apply a little intellectual rigour, and do the background, the 'softer' sciences can be very valuable.

 

Economists, for example, have had a very hard time in recent years, but I can point you to some pretty good ones. See above.

 

 

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

Before I leave this thread for the night, I'd just like to point out that one of the big concerns of recent times is siloing, only talking to people who agree with you.

 

That isn't the case here, and whatever your views, it is good to throw the issues of the day back and forth, because although it might get a bit snarky at times, there is common ground. May is wooden, the future is uncertain, Jezza is better now he has smartened himself up, Trump is a frickin madman/Russian puppet etc.

 

It is bit time consuming though, no wonder Alf has gone off for a 2-week lie down. 

Edited 6 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

Surely you accept that our trade with the EU will be adversely affected though, even TM finally admitted that.

Maybe. Maybe not. 

 

The remainers have lurched from doom and gloom economy to doom and gloom trade. 

 

Remainers are spouting as fact that we will be worse off when we leave the EU. 

 

Believe it or not, I have no strong opinion either way regarding leave or remain, I just get a little peeved that people are stating theory as fact - I do believe that a trade bloc is a good thing...I also believe that uncontrolled migration (immigration) is clearly unsustainable and is a bad thing. 

 

I see the EU as a swollen, self serving, repugnant slug of an organisation. (Same as I view FIFA/UEFA, for what it’s worth)

 

But there are obvious benefits of being a parasite on that slug. 

 

I don’t particularly want a European banking system or European Army - which (in my non-expert opinion) is the way things are headed. 

 

I couldn't give a flying fvck about the minutiae of fishing quotas and farming subsidies, if I’m being brutally honest. 

 

I think the European Research Council is an amazingly good idea and we really have to be part of it. 

 

I think the ECJ is a crock of shit. 

 

I think Brexit will be manipulated and used as a stick for all the ills of the world that the remainers will use to beat whatever a given social  issue is on whatever given day. 

 

I think the PM is weak and wholly unsuitable to lead this project - and I think the alternatives are probably worse. 

 

No idea where that leaves me. But please, don’t say that experts know for a fact what will happen when we leave the EU. They really don’t. 

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, there's a difference between experts in softer sciences and those in harder ones - the sad problem is that the two are getting rather conflated these days.

 

I think you do economics a bit of a disservice sometimes. Most of the time when it comes into the public sphere its either politicised and so is actually a case of politics rather than economics or its to do with Macro forecasting, for which I don't think it compares unfavourably to other forecasting disciplines. When the Queen opened the NAB building at LSE she asked the director of research why they didn't see it coming, but by and large that isn't what economists are supposed to do. They're much better as empiricists than forecasters. 

 

If you look at Microeconomics, its as mathematically sound as any of the 'hard' sciences with the assumptions used. Maybe its not always testable, but is string theory? How much of Physics does pass the falsifiable test rather than just the human perception of falsifiable? (I'm not keen on getting into the philosophical debate around whether we really understand science). I've digressed. Okay maybe one of the issues is combining the mathematical insights based on assumptions with the human element. And certainly the human behaviour element poses a problem. But there is now growing work on behavioural economics to fit real reactions into mathematical models. For instance, we're now pretty good at modelling risk and loss aversion. Bare in mind, it's a relatively young discipline as well, certainly its quantitative origins. The increasing availability of data and statistics will only make it more scientific. The concept of GDP only came about in the 40s and wasn't really used until the 70s, so that's just one area where we don't have enough data (yeah they go back and try to estimate historically). And whilst very much still in its infancy, quantum economics is gaining traction as there is now the belief that quantum mechanics could be used to model consumer behaviour, decision making, and could be used to explain George Soros' idea of reflexivity in financial markets. 

 

From a macro point of view, yeah it's a little less of a science. Partly because it's pretty difficult to repeatedly create a financial crisis to observe it perfectly. Even if we could, it would be impossible to predict the start of a financial crisis (if you did it wouldn't happen anyway) but neither is it possible to predict when an earthquake will strike (I don't know at what point it is possible to predict the formation of a star?) And yeah we are yet to understand if monetary or fiscal policy play a more important role, which is probably more observable. But with the advent, and growing influence of econometrics, we are better able to test scenarios using empirical data to come up with how situations might play out. So even macro is moving closer. The problem will always lie with damned politicians using economics for policy reasons to further themselves. 

 

I still maintain it is no less of a science than medicine and medicine suffers similarly when its brought into the public sphere for public health policy. Is it really any difference that the medical profession still doesn't have full understanding of the full connections between diet and lifestyle on health and ageing. Are economists that test theories and develop them with changing data any different to that do research on new treatments? I think I've made the medicine point before ( I remember writing it somewhere and I'm only a saddo on here). I think medical science does more damage to expert reputation personally. But again blame the journos and politicians for misrepresenting it.

Edited 6 March 2018 by Kopfkino