FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A confession ...
A confession ...
Jump to: Newest in thread
Please forgive my unburdening my guilt on you all ..  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have to confess to feelings of Schadenfreude today. I know I shouldn't rejoice in good news for Britain but I feel the need to 'share' with you all. Draw some chairs into a circle.... Some of you will recall the rather fractious debate about whether the IHS Markit CM 'Flash' and later reports were accurate or just schemes to push down the currency and make a killing. Well apparently today they have expressed surprise that they were actually wrong. No really! IHS Markit had been expecting GDP growth of 1.6% this year, slowing to just 0.2% in 2017, but has raised its forecast to 1.9% and 0.6%. In a month. Apparently the British economy is in pretty sound shape and so they have raised 'forecasts'. Discuss.... Reed recruiting are now saying they have 400,000 new jobs advertised post Brexit. Former Bank of England Governor Lord King claimed today that 'Brexit will actually help the economy thrive' as he criticised 'speculative' scare stories as 'insulting to the intelligence of the voter'. How does that square with his successor who played a leading role IN that Project Fear. He added: 'The mistake was to portray these extreme outcomes in the future as almost inevitable rather than what they were, which were highly speculative forecasts.' And lastly Britain enjoyed record inward investment last year – despite 'forecasts' that Brexit uncertainty would cast a pall on the economy. Across the country, 2,213 investment projects by foreign companies were secured in 2015/16 – an 11 per cent increase on the previous year. Liam Fox, the new International Trade Secretary, said this had led to around 116,000 jobs being created or safeguarded – the second-highest number on record. Ah yes 'forecasts' ....
Please forgive my unburdening my guilt on you all .. "Stop being so cheerful. Remember we haven't left the EU yet......  x | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). " . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts" what a happy chap | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts" But this is my point mon ami, moving money from your left pocket to your right doesn't make you better off, but it does create GDP. We can argue the fuck out of whether growth would be 1.6% with Brexit or 1.4% without, but in the words of the Rock "it doesn't matter". Most that one point whatever is bullshit that isn't making anyone better off and it's gonna disappear as soon as the next financial crisis happens. Believe me there will be another financial crisis again because if there's one thing bank bailout do create, it's moral hazard. | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap "CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones? | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones? "No, sorry | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry"Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry
Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up "go on then I'm sure others do and I did watch the first episode | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry
Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up
go on then I'm sure others do and I did watch the first episode "Thanks, what I'm saying is that the situation is a lot like Game of Thrones. Everyone is too busy arguing over decimal points of GDP growth (the iron throne) to realise that the white walkers are already coming (i.e productivity has collapsed) and the white walkers are going to f them up. So it's really irrelevant who sits on the throne because they are all dead anyway, they just don't know it yet. I wonder if OP thinks that beats my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? | |||
| |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry
Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up
go on then I'm sure others do and I did watch the first episode
Thanks, what I'm saying is that the situation is a lot like Game of Thrones. Everyone is too busy arguing over decimal points of GDP growth (the iron throne) to realise that the white walkers are already coming (i.e productivity has collapsed) and the white walkers are going to f them up. So it's really irrelevant who sits on the throne because they are all dead anyway, they just don't know it yet.
I wonder if OP thinks that beats my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? "dunno but I liked that one. I can see where you're coming from but its good to point out that the 'experts' were wrong and to see the ones who held the throne losing the throne | |||
| |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry
Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up
go on then I'm sure others do and I did watch the first episode
Thanks, what I'm saying is that the situation is a lot like Game of Thrones. Everyone is too busy arguing over decimal points of GDP growth (the iron throne) to realise that the white walkers are already coming (i.e productivity has collapsed) and the white walkers are going to f them up. So it's really irrelevant who sits on the throne because they are all dead anyway, they just don't know it yet.
I wonder if OP thinks that beats my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor?
dunno but I liked that one.
I can see where you're coming from but its good to point out that the 'experts' were wrong and to see the ones who held the throne losing the throne"Don't get me started on brier scores again! | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! " Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! | |||
| |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? " Because its not used in the industry? | |||
| |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? " As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. " Yet you can’t name one? | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one?" If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one? If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. " So you are saying that Brier scores are important, that they only industry they are used in is economic forecasting, yet no one publishes their Brier score? I think that I will go back to my point that they are therefore not used in the industry. | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy. "And this is because of Brexit? | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?"Thats what the MPC said. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one? If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. So you are saying that Brier scores are important, that they only industry they are used in is economic forecasting, yet no one publishes their Brier score? I think that I will go back to my point that they are therefore not used in the industry." Honestly, sometimes you come across like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist / creationist type for whom no evidence could ever persuade you past your intuitive opinion. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one? If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. So you are saying that Brier scores are important, that they only industry they are used in is economic forecasting, yet no one publishes their Brier score? I think that I will go back to my point that they are therefore not used in the industry. Honestly, sometimes you come across like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist / creationist type for whom no evidence could ever persuade you past your intuitive opinion. " well if they are used in the industry, as you claim, then you would be able to name an economist and their score, its quite simple. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one? If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. So you are saying that Brier scores are important, that they only industry they are used in is economic forecasting, yet no one publishes their Brier score? I think that I will go back to my point that they are therefore not used in the industry. Honestly, sometimes you come across like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist / creationist type for whom no evidence could ever persuade you past your intuitive opinion. well if they are used in the industry, as you claim, then you would be able to name an economist and their score, its quite simple." I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. | |||
" Don't get me started on brier scores again! Last time you couldn't state even one economist and their brier score! Have you considered why that might be? Because its not used in the industry? As I told you last time, it's the only industry it's used in. The whole study I referenced you on is dedicated to the measurement of it. Yet you can’t name one? If you read the study, or thought beyond your intuitive judgement, you'd see that the study scientifically proves that the forecasts that are usually quoted in the media are significantly worse than ones that can be produced by amateurs with the right skills. The reason I can't name them is that the professionals won't publish their own scores because their scores are shit and would expose them for the frauds they are. Thankfully, Tetlock did a 20-year study for you to retrospectively calculate the brier scores of 'experts' and compare them to random chance - guess who won? Then he participated in another study which can name hundred of amateurs who are superior forecasters and several of them are named in his book 'super forecasters' but these aren't names you'll see on TV. So you are saying that Brier scores are important, that they only industry they are used in is economic forecasting, yet no one publishes their Brier score? I think that I will go back to my point that they are therefore not used in the industry. Honestly, sometimes you come across like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist / creationist type for whom no evidence could ever persuade you past your intuitive opinion. well if they are used in the industry, as you claim, then you would be able to name an economist and their score, its quite simple. I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. " Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? " What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? " So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example?" The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? " You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist!" Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question " Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. | |||
| |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued." Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe'" Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?  | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. " So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?  | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not? "only experts whose forecasts have gone against the majority of experts and been proved right. Still doesn't mean I necessarily think any of them will be right in the future but I agree with him on the Euro | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
only experts whose forecasts have gone against the majority of experts and been proved right. Still doesn't mean I necessarily think any of them will be right in the future but I agree with him on the Euro"So you only listen to the experts you agree with? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it? "Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008. You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
only experts whose forecasts have gone against the majority of experts and been proved right. Still doesn't mean I necessarily think any of them will be right in the future but I agree with him on the Euro
So you only listen to the experts you agree with?"can you not read? | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
only experts whose forecasts have gone against the majority of experts and been proved right. Still doesn't mean I necessarily think any of them will be right in the future but I agree with him on the Euro
So you only listen to the experts you agree with?
can you not read?"Did you agree with him when he thought it was better for the UK to remain in the EU? | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas."You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not? "Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas.
You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media."I have a scientific study to support my views. You don't. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you "I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question."You don't know what an expert is. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
only experts whose forecasts have gone against the majority of experts and been proved right. Still doesn't mean I necessarily think any of them will be right in the future but I agree with him on the Euro
So you only listen to the experts you agree with?
can you not read?
Did you agree with him when he thought it was better for the UK to remain in the EU? "obviously not and with good reason. He has now changed his mind. I agree with him on the Euro is all | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas.
You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media.
I have a scientific study to support my views. You don't. "So their is a whole industry of economic forecasting, and economists working for universities, governments, banks, corporations, think tanks, supermarkets, local authorities, supra national organisations, hedge funds, Nobel prizes for economics etc. And according to you, they are not only worse than useless, but they know that they are worse than useless, and that their whole industry is worse than useless. However, all of these people seem to have found employment, and their employers haven't yet noticed how useless they are, but your study proves it to everyone. If a whole industry could be phoney, do you not think that there is even the slightest possibility that your scientific study could actually be phoney? | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is. "Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?  | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas.
You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media.
I have a scientific study to support my views. You don't.
So their is a whole industry of economic forecasting, and economists working for universities, governments, banks, corporations, think tanks, supermarkets, local authorities, supra national organisations, hedge funds, Nobel prizes for economics etc. And according to you, they are not only worse than useless, but they know that they are worse than useless, and that their whole industry is worse than useless. However, all of these people seem to have found employment, and their employers haven't yet noticed how useless they are, but your study proves it to everyone.
If a whole industry could be phoney, do you not think that there is even the slightest possibility that your scientific study could actually be phoney? "It measures events placed in the public domain using a publicised method. Are you now suggesting Google is a hoax? Let's talk about Nobel prize winning economists. Do a search for Long Term Capital Management and see what happens when they put their ideas into practice, 'worse than useless' would be a kind description of their results. So what was the IFS forecast for 2008? No doubt they were screaming warnings from the rooftops in 2007? | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me? "Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does. "Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled. | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas.
You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media.
I have a scientific study to support my views. You don't.
So their is a whole industry of economic forecasting, and economists working for universities, governments, banks, corporations, think tanks, supermarkets, local authorities, supra national organisations, hedge funds, Nobel prizes for economics etc. And according to you, they are not only worse than useless, but they know that they are worse than useless, and that their whole industry is worse than useless. However, all of these people seem to have found employment, and their employers haven't yet noticed how useless they are, but your study proves it to everyone.
If a whole industry could be phoney, do you not think that there is even the slightest possibility that your scientific study could actually be phoney?
It measures events placed in the public domain using a publicised method. Are you now suggesting Google is a hoax?
Let's talk about Nobel prize winning economists. Do a search for Long Term Capital Management and see what happens when they put their ideas into practice, 'worse than useless' would be a kind description of their results.
So what was the IFS forecast for 2008? No doubt they were screaming warnings from the rooftops in 2007? "Well I'm sure you will provide me with their all important Brier score and then we will all be able to objectively judge how good they arem Or we could read your scientific study where the author says, I have the data, but I cant provide you with the data (for obvious reasons  ), so you will just have to trust me that the data says what I tell you it says. | |||
" I see I'm going to have to dumb this down more. Right here goes, let's start with an analogy as you might understand that. Jamie Vardy has a 'shots on target %' that exists in objective reality whether he acknowledges it or not. Leicester City do not choose whether 'shots on target %' gets used in their industry or not. Anyone observing their football games can calculate it if they want to. I don't have time to sit there and calculate all the scores of all the economists for you. Fortunately, a representative sample was done that gives us a base line. Your hypothesis is that the professionals have magically improved since the study, even though they haven't changed a damn thing about how they operate, but also that they don't want to boast about how they are now accurate either. My hypothesis is that nothing has changed since the study and that's why they don't publish the scores that would reveal how shit they are. Other reasonably intelligent readers of the thread can judge which hypothesis is more likely. But honestly, if you think there's something strange about asking how well the past forecasts turned out, before accepting a new one then that says more about you than it does me. Im not stupid, and you don’t need to dumb anything down for me. You are the one who has raised the issue of a Brier score, you are the one who says that its important, you are the one who has said that it is used in the industry, yet you are the one who has failed to give the Brier score of a single economist. Using your analogy, player A playing for club X might not chose to publish the data, but Sports Channel Y might have calculated it along with sports newspaper Z and both would have published it. If Brier scores really were used in the industry, then surely there would be an independent source (in the same way a sports channel or newspaper is independent from the actual results of the match) that could make a lot of money saying that this economist is more accurate than that economist by publishing their Brier scores? What part of this isn't clear- you don't get to choose whether a measure gets applied to you or not. Tetlocks study is your newspaper z. So in your world, forecasters don't measure their accuracy. That's what you are saying? So what does Brier score does Tetlock, or anyone else give, the IFS for example? The study isn't specific to individual institutions for fairly obvious legal reasons. The IFS would fall into the 'expert' group which, on average, performs worse than random chance. So again, do you believe that forecasters measure their accuracy or not? You’re the ‘expert’ so you tell me. So you can’t tell me the Brier score of the IFS, neither can Tetlock, or anyone else? Yet without that score that you say is important, you intuitively know that they are worse than random chance, and you say that I sound like a conspiracy theorist! Tetlock could, he calculated it, he couldn't publish the individual result for obvious reasons so he grouped them. Again, in your head, do forecasters measure accuracy or not? It's a simple question Whats the obvious reason why he couldn’t publish them? Again to take your footballer analogy, an independent source can quote shots on target data without fear of being sued. Since you can't answer a simple question we'll end it with this. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. Forecasters do measure their accuracy in which case the brier score is the standard measure of doing so and you are wrong. 2. Forecasters don't measure their accuracy and so why the fuck would you accept a future forecast from someone when you have no idea how good their past ones were. So you think that they measure their accuracy, find that not just they are crap at their job, but that their whole industry is worse that useless, and yet continue to dedicate their lives to doing it?
Yup and if you don't then you didn't learn much in 2008.
You assume the media and politicians would pay money for accurate forecasts rather than want to use them for entertainment or to push agendas.
You seem to be assuming that the majority of economists are funded by politicians and the media.
I have a scientific study to support my views. You don't.
So their is a whole industry of economic forecasting, and economists working for universities, governments, banks, corporations, think tanks, supermarkets, local authorities, supra national organisations, hedge funds, Nobel prizes for economics etc. And according to you, they are not only worse than useless, but they know that they are worse than useless, and that their whole industry is worse than useless. However, all of these people seem to have found employment, and their employers haven't yet noticed how useless they are, but your study proves it to everyone.
If a whole industry could be phoney, do you not think that there is even the slightest possibility that your scientific study could actually be phoney?
It measures events placed in the public domain using a publicised method. Are you now suggesting Google is a hoax?
Let's talk about Nobel prize winning economists. Do a search for Long Term Capital Management and see what happens when they put their ideas into practice, 'worse than useless' would be a kind description of their results.
So what was the IFS forecast for 2008? No doubt they were screaming warnings from the rooftops in 2007?
Well I'm sure you will provide me with their all important Brier score and then we will all be able to objectively judge how good they arem
Or we could read your scientific study where the author says, I have the data, but I cant provide you with the data (for obvious reasons ), so you will just have to trust me that the data says what I tell you it says."It would be lost on you anyway
Just keep believing in the forecasts that tell you what you want to hear, life's easier that way. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled. "Well this sensible person hasn't fled anywhere... But picking up on a couple of your points on which you base your thesis of Brexit being a disaster: * No 'expert' has been in this economic or political situation before. Inter Alia there are no 'experts'. There are people with skills but no 'experts'. * Every 'forecast' pre the Referendum has been proved wrong. Treasury ones spectacularly so. IMF and OECD ones equally so. Even your favourite IHS Markit 'experts' have now had to back their truck up and 'forecast' better numbers. No doubt they are still on the low side to mitigate their errors. * You keep dropping in the £70 Bn of QE (that is actually £60 Bn and hasn't actually been spent yet) forgetting that it is an investment in Government Bonds just like the last dose of QE was. Except this time yields are already at an all time low so investors are being forced into other Bonds / Stocks. Of course in time any QE will provide a profit. And of course unlike our £13 Bn it stays in this country and doesn't waft off to the EU. This time we do not have a banking crisis just an issue of confidence that was damaged by the extraordinary Project Fear mounted by Osborne and the Treasury. And even post Brexit those who peddled it (like Mark Carney) have sought to make sure their prophesies are fulfilled even if this damages the UK. And why a 10 year, including the 2009 crisis, ex Governor has torn Osborne and Carney to shreds this week. I must admit though I found your last few exchanges interesting though. | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said."And you believe that because that's the 'expert' speaking? | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said.
And you believe that because that's the 'expert' speaking?"So where's the following then? Massive hike in interest rates £4,300 per household worse off Roaring inflation 3,000,000 job losses Diversion of investment from UK to EU Emergency budget Stocks and shares collapse All opinions of the 'experts' you constantly quote. And the new round of QE? That was going to happen anyway. But you do know that the ECB is using QE on a scale far greater than the UK don't you? Can you explain that in terms of Brexit please? | |||
" picking up on a couple of your points on which you base your thesis of Brexit being a disaster: * No 'expert' has been in this economic or political situation before. Inter Alia there are no 'experts'. There are people with skills but no 'experts'. * Every 'forecast' pre the Referendum has been proved wrong. Treasury ones spectacularly so. IMF and OECD ones equally so. Even your favourite IHS Markit 'experts' have now had to back their truck up and 'forecast' better numbers. No doubt they are still on the low side to mitigate their errors. * You keep dropping in the £70 Bn of QE (that is actually £60 Bn and hasn't actually been spent yet) forgetting that it is an investment in Government Bonds just like the last dose of QE was. Except this time yields are already at an all time low so investors are being forced into other Bonds / Stocks. Of course in time any QE will provide a profit. And of course unlike our £13 Bn it stays in this country and doesn't waft off to the EU. This time we do not have a banking crisis just an issue of confidence that was damaged by the extraordinary Project Fear mounted by Osborne and the Treasury. And even post Brexit those who peddled it (like Mark Carney) have sought to make sure their prophesies are fulfilled even if this damages the UK. And why a 10 year, including the 2009 crisis, ex Governor has torn Osborne and Carney to shreds this week. I must admit though I found your last few exchanges interesting though."  | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts what a happy chap
CandM4U - do you watch game of thrones?
No, sorry
Awww fuck, I had a killer analogy saved up
go on then I'm sure others do and I did watch the first episode
Thanks, what I'm saying is that the situation is a lot like Game of Thrones. Everyone is too busy arguing over decimal points of GDP growth (the iron throne) to realise that the white walkers are already coming (i.e productivity has collapsed) and the white walkers are going to f them up. So it's really irrelevant who sits on the throne because they are all dead anyway, they just don't know it yet.
I wonder if OP thinks that beats my joke about the efficient market hypothesis professor? "Are you saying the EU "were" holding the throne and the UK are the "white walkers" | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said.
And you believe that because that's the 'expert' speaking?"The MPC set the rate, they said they set the rate at 0.25% because of Brexit. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled. "PMSL Ever thought of applying for Evan Davis's job? | |||
| |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said.
And you believe that because that's the 'expert' speaking?
So where's the following then?
Massive hike in interest rates
£4,300 per household worse off
Roaring inflation
3,000,000 job losses
Diversion of investment from UK to EU
Emergency budget
Stocks and shares collapse
All opinions of the 'experts' you constantly quote.
And the new round of QE? That was going to happen anyway.
But you do know that the ECB is using QE on a scale far greater than the UK don't you? Can you explain that in terms of Brexit please?
"You expected all of those to happen more than two years BEFORE Brexit, and just 2 months after the referendum? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters." So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? " Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters." True to form when those with an agenda of hatred and ignorance themselves lose an argument they resort to accusations of hatred and ignorance... No one mentioned climate change. Yet. Yes I fiercely deny I am a racist as you repeatedly call me. Who has denied there has been hate crime? Its just no one in the Leave campaigns promoted any form of race hatred as you keep gobbing off about. As for the rest I can't be arsed with your nonsense... | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled.
PMSL Ever thought of applying for Evan Davis's job? " Nah they aren't Leftie enough ...  | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said.
And you believe that because that's the 'expert' speaking?
The MPC set the rate, they said they set the rate at 0.25% because of Brexit. "errr .. no the MPC set interest rates to respond to currency changes. Changes that were created by profiteers like IHS Markit first talking the £ value up and then sharply down with negative reports. they even said (and I quote) "An interest rate cut is inevitable". Bastards! But they took their profits so thats OK then. See what EU luvvies like you forget is that the reason the Euro is failing and will continue so to do is that poorer countries like Greece, Italy and Spain cannot reduce interest rates or take independent action by themselves. They are caged in by the needs of Germany whose surplus driven economy needs a vastly different solution. So the poorer nations get f**ked over every time. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks?" Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled.
Well this sensible person hasn't fled anywhere... But picking up on a couple of your points on which you base your thesis of Brexit being a disaster:
* No 'expert' has been in this economic or political situation before. Inter Alia there are no 'experts'. There are people with skills but no 'experts'.
* Every 'forecast' pre the Referendum has been proved wrong. Treasury ones spectacularly so. IMF and OECD ones equally so. Even your favourite IHS Markit 'experts' have now had to back their truck up and 'forecast' better numbers. No doubt they are still on the low side to mitigate their errors.
* You keep dropping in the £70 Bn of QE (that is actually £60 Bn and hasn't actually been spent yet) forgetting that it is an investment in Government Bonds just like the last dose of QE was. Except this time yields are already at an all time low so investors are being forced into other Bonds / Stocks. Of course in time any QE will provide a profit. And of course unlike our £13 Bn it stays in this country and doesn't waft off to the EU. This time we do not have a banking crisis just an issue of confidence that was damaged by the extraordinary Project Fear mounted by Osborne and the Treasury. And even post Brexit those who peddled it (like Mark Carney) have sought to make sure their prophesies are fulfilled even if this damages the UK. And why a 10 year, including the 2009 crisis, ex Governor has torn Osborne and Carney to shreds this week.
I must admit though I found your last few exchanges interesting though."Im going to have to disagree with you, there are still experts, there might not be an expert in “Brexit”, but there are experts in different fields that can tell you what the likely impact of Brexit will be, they may be experts in Defence, science, farming, the economy etc. Every forecast pre-referendum hasn’t been proved wrong, the majority of the forecasts were actually about Britain after we have left the EU, and we haven’t done that yet, and even if we take your (in my opinion) very optimistic view we are at least 8 months away from leaving, or in my view, we are more than two years away from leaving. Yes there was £70 billion of monetary policy, I hope that we can actually agree in this figure, £60 billion of UK government bonds and £10 billion of UK corporate bonds. Details of which can be found in the published minutes of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. As I previously referred you to the article in the Economist about how the money has already been spent, if you have other evidence to support your argument that the money hasn’t been spend then I would be interested to read it. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? " Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study?" Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. " Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. " You know you still have supplied that what has been asked of you throughout all of this thread re. how Brier is scored. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes?" I told you already - go research Long Term Capital Management. Stupid is as stupid does. Don't lose $3.5bn and then tell me you are clever. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. True to form when those with an agenda of hatred and ignorance themselves lose an argument they resort to accusations of hatred and ignorance... No one mentioned climate change. Yet. Yes I fiercely deny I am a racist as you repeatedly call me. Who has denied there has been hate crime? Its just no one in the Leave campaigns promoted any form of race hatred as you keep gobbing off about. As for the rest I can't be arsed with your nonsense... "HornyAs2016 calm down, it was a comment, an observation. We are allowed them given gobbing off on fab takes pace even few minutes. You are allowed your remoaners and project fears. You don't need to take it personal, you just keep the thread on track... | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. True to form when those with an agenda of hatred and ignorance themselves lose an argument they resort to accusations of hatred and ignorance... No one mentioned climate change. Yet. Yes I fiercely deny I am a racist as you repeatedly call me. Who has denied there has been hate crime? Its just no one in the Leave campaigns promoted any form of race hatred as you keep gobbing off about. As for the rest I can't be arsed with your nonsense... "There has been talk of climate change in the politics section of the forum, as has all of the other things that I have mentioned. I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. Multiple people on this section of the forum have denied that there is even such a thing as a hate crime. | |||
| |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes?" Like the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglist who I mentioned earlier? What are your opinions of this 'expert' who apparently said the UK would be better of in the EU yet last night on tv said the UK would be better off out of the EU? | |||
| |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes? Like the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglist who I mentioned earlier? What are your opinions of this 'expert' who apparently said the UK would be better of in the EU yet last night on tv said the UK would be better off out of the EU? " I haven't read much about what he has said to be honest, but as a nobel prize winning economist I would say that he is someone worth listening to on the economy. That's not to say that any single expert should be believed 100% and in isolation. So I would look at what he is saying, and look at what other credible, independent sources were also saying. Personally I would say that anyone who has earned a nobel prize would, in most people's opinions, qualify for the title of an expert in their field. | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes? Like the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglist who I mentioned earlier? What are your opinions of this 'expert' who apparently said the UK would be better of in the EU yet last night on tv said the UK would be better off out of the EU? I haven't read much about what he has said to be honest, but as a nobel prize winning economist I would say that he is someone worth listening to on the economy. That's not to say that any single expert should be believed 100% and in isolation. So I would look at what he is saying, and look at what other credible, independent sources were also saying. Personally I would say that anyone who has earned a nobel prize would, in most people's opinions, qualify for the title of an expert in their field." or in the case of economics, a good guesser? | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled.
Well this sensible person hasn't fled anywhere... But picking up on a couple of your points on which you base your thesis of Brexit being a disaster:
* No 'expert' has been in this economic or political situation before. Inter Alia there are no 'experts'. There are people with skills but no 'experts'.
* Every 'forecast' pre the Referendum has been proved wrong. Treasury ones spectacularly so. IMF and OECD ones equally so. Even your favourite IHS Markit 'experts' have now had to back their truck up and 'forecast' better numbers. No doubt they are still on the low side to mitigate their errors.
* You keep dropping in the £70 Bn of QE (that is actually £60 Bn and hasn't actually been spent yet) forgetting that it is an investment in Government Bonds just like the last dose of QE was. Except this time yields are already at an all time low so investors are being forced into other Bonds / Stocks. Of course in time any QE will provide a profit. And of course unlike our £13 Bn it stays in this country and doesn't waft off to the EU. This time we do not have a banking crisis just an issue of confidence that was damaged by the extraordinary Project Fear mounted by Osborne and the Treasury. And even post Brexit those who peddled it (like Mark Carney) have sought to make sure their prophesies are fulfilled even if this damages the UK. And why a 10 year, including the 2009 crisis, ex Governor has torn Osborne and Carney to shreds this week.
I must admit though I found your last few exchanges interesting though.
Im going to have to disagree with you, there are still experts, there might not be an expert in “Brexit”, but there are experts in different fields that can tell you what the likely impact of Brexit will be, they may be experts in Defence, science, farming, the economy etc.
Every forecast pre-referendum hasn’t been proved wrong, the majority of the forecasts were actually about Britain after we have left the EU, and we haven’t done that yet, and even if we take your (in my opinion) very optimistic view we are at least 8 months away from leaving, or in my view, we are more than two years away from leaving.
Yes there was £70 billion of monetary policy, I hope that we can actually agree in this figure, £60 billion of UK government bonds and £10 billion of UK corporate bonds. Details of which can be found in the published minutes of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. As I previously referred you to the article in the Economist about how the money has already been spent, if you have other evidence to support your argument that the money hasn’t been spend then I would be interested to read it."So tell us, which if the economic experts that forecast financial armageddon immediately following Brexit, you know, the experts that you listen to and put all of your faith in, actually predicted the global economic crash of 2008/09? | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are." You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ... | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ... "So you never started a thread called "can we define racism?" which I believe was about you racially upsetting people with your choice of language? No? That never happened? | |||
"I have to confess to feelings of Schadenfreude today. I know I shouldn't rejoice in good news for Britain but I feel the need to 'share' with you all. Draw some chairs into a circle.... Some of you will recall the rather fractious debate about whether the IHS Markit CM 'Flash' and later reports were accurate or just schemes to push down the currency and make a killing. Well apparently today they have expressed surprise that they were actually wrong. No really! IHS Markit had been expecting GDP growth of 1.6% this year, slowing to just 0.2% in 2017, but has raised its forecast to 1.9% and 0.6%. In a month. Apparently the British economy is in pretty sound shape and so they have raised 'forecasts'. Discuss.... Reed recruiting are now saying they have 400,000 new jobs advertised post Brexit. Former Bank of England Governor Lord King claimed today that 'Brexit will actually help the economy thrive' as he criticised 'speculative' scare stories as 'insulting to the intelligence of the voter'. How does that square with his successor who played a leading role IN that Project Fear. He added: 'The mistake was to portray these extreme outcomes in the future as almost inevitable rather than what they were, which were highly speculative forecasts.' And lastly Britain enjoyed record inward investment last year – despite 'forecasts' that Brexit uncertainty would cast a pall on the economy. Across the country, 2,213 investment projects by foreign companies were secured in 2015/16 – an 11 per cent increase on the previous year. Liam Fox, the new International Trade Secretary, said this had led to around 116,000 jobs being created or safeguarded – the second-highest number on record. Ah yes 'forecasts' ....
Please forgive my unburdening my guilt on you all .. "the remoaners will be shocked and accuse the brexiteers of smudging the figures manipulating the facts and still try to convince that project DOOM will arrive on 25/12  | |||
"Don't take this the wrong way, but completely irrespective if Brexit, the UK economy has huge problems. Firstly most people don't really understand what GDP is and why it's a fairly shit measure. What people want is to be better off (i.e a higher standard of living). What GDP tells you is how many transactions are taking place and hopes there's a correlation. The reason the correlation has been getting worse is because our productivity is shit. Very few economists even understand what productivity is, if they did they wouldn't express it using a currency. The reason our productivity sucks are exactly the reasons Joseph Schumpeter predicted in the 40's. Again, none of these have anything to do with Brexit or no-Brexit. The only thing you should feel optimistic is that most other developed countries have similar problems (e.g. France). But for the foreseeable future, it's the second tier countries will continue to close the gap on us (e.g. Eastern Europe, China, India etc). . I like the fact that you carry on the good fight friend!. The problem is nobody gives a shit as long as there house continues its growth.. They're like pigs in muck.... Apathy was always going to be the first world's biggest problem. It's like the age old... Oh I do feel sorry for the third world if only they had some jobs and money... Oh wait the third world's got my job... Bunch of cunts" the 3rd world is trying to exit through libya as fast as the navy of the european union can carry them  | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ...
So you never started a thread called "can we define racism?" which I believe was about you racially upsetting people with your choice of language? No? That never happened? "Errr .. the Thread asked a question. And in my preamble I made it quite clear I felt I was NOT a bloody racist so where the HELL do you get off twisting that around then? Christ you have made some vicious and unfounded statements in your time but that has to be the worst. I asked what makes people take offence when none is intended and when people use expressions that have been around for ages unchallenged. Indeed in this case where a very old and respected Scottish Regiment used the very term I used (and which was then called 'racist') about themselves. But here we are again. A thread absolutely NOTHING to do with racism has been dragged into a racism issue by YOU. No one else. Just YOU! | |||
"I have to confess to feelings of Schadenfreude today. I know I shouldn't rejoice in good news for Britain but I feel the need to 'share' with you all. Draw some chairs into a circle.... Some of you will recall the rather fractious debate about whether the IHS Markit CM 'Flash' and later reports were accurate or just schemes to push down the currency and make a killing. Well apparently today they have expressed surprise that they were actually wrong. No really! IHS Markit had been expecting GDP growth of 1.6% this year, slowing to just 0.2% in 2017, but has raised its forecast to 1.9% and 0.6%. In a month. Apparently the British economy is in pretty sound shape and so they have raised 'forecasts'. Discuss.... Reed recruiting are now saying they have 400,000 new jobs advertised post Brexit. Former Bank of England Governor Lord King claimed today that 'Brexit will actually help the economy thrive' as he criticised 'speculative' scare stories as 'insulting to the intelligence of the voter'. How does that square with his successor who played a leading role IN that Project Fear. He added: 'The mistake was to portray these extreme outcomes in the future as almost inevitable rather than what they were, which were highly speculative forecasts.' And lastly Britain enjoyed record inward investment last year – despite 'forecasts' that Brexit uncertainty would cast a pall on the economy. Across the country, 2,213 investment projects by foreign companies were secured in 2015/16 – an 11 per cent increase on the previous year. Liam Fox, the new International Trade Secretary, said this had led to around 116,000 jobs being created or safeguarded – the second-highest number on record. Ah yes 'forecasts' ....
Please forgive my unburdening my guilt on you all ..
Stop being so cheerful. Remember we haven't left the EU yet...... x"Not yet but we definitely will.
Theresa May confirmed it again yesterday at Chequers, when she told her new cabinet, "There will be no attempt to sort of Remain in the EU by the back door".
Brexit still means Brexit. | |||
"You forgot about the £70 bn of QE, and the fact that the bank of England has had to cut its rates to their lowest level in 300+ years just to prop up the economy.
And this is because of Brexit?
Thats what the MPC said."If the MPC told you pigs could fly would you believe them? | |||
"I have to confess to feelings of Schadenfreude today. I know I shouldn't rejoice in good news for Britain but I feel the need to 'share' with you all. Draw some chairs into a circle.... Some of you will recall the rather fractious debate about whether the IHS Markit CM 'Flash' and later reports were accurate or just schemes to push down the currency and make a killing. Well apparently today they have expressed surprise that they were actually wrong. No really! IHS Markit had been expecting GDP growth of 1.6% this year, slowing to just 0.2% in 2017, but has raised its forecast to 1.9% and 0.6%. In a month. Apparently the British economy is in pretty sound shape and so they have raised 'forecasts'. Discuss.... Reed recruiting are now saying they have 400,000 new jobs advertised post Brexit. Former Bank of England Governor Lord King claimed today that 'Brexit will actually help the economy thrive' as he criticised 'speculative' scare stories as 'insulting to the intelligence of the voter'. How does that square with his successor who played a leading role IN that Project Fear. He added: 'The mistake was to portray these extreme outcomes in the future as almost inevitable rather than what they were, which were highly speculative forecasts.' And lastly Britain enjoyed record inward investment last year – despite 'forecasts' that Brexit uncertainty would cast a pall on the economy. Across the country, 2,213 investment projects by foreign companies were secured in 2015/16 – an 11 per cent increase on the previous year. Liam Fox, the new International Trade Secretary, said this had led to around 116,000 jobs being created or safeguarded – the second-highest number on record. Ah yes 'forecasts' ....
Please forgive my unburdening my guilt on you all ..
Stop being so cheerful. Remember we haven't left the EU yet...... x
Not yet but we definitely will.
Theresa May confirmed it again yesterday at Chequers, when she told her new cabinet, "There will be no attempt to sort of Remain in the EU by the back door".
Brexit still means Brexit. "Not sure if it was a joke or fact, but one of the options was to rejoin the EU after the Brexit. Although it was refused. | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ...
So you never started a thread called "can we define racism?" which I believe was about you racially upsetting people with your choice of language? No? That never happened?
Errr .. the Thread asked a question. And in my preamble I made it quite clear I felt I was NOT a bloody racist so where the HELL do you get off twisting that around then? Christ you have made some vicious and unfounded statements in your time but that has to be the worst.
I asked what makes people take offence when none is intended and when people use expressions that have been around for ages unchallenged. Indeed in this case where a very old and respected Scottish Regiment used the very term I used (and which was then called 'racist') about themselves.
But here we are again. A thread absolutely NOTHING to do with racism has been dragged into a racism issue by YOU. No one else. Just YOU!"You seem to enjoy wallowing in the role of victim. | |||
"Joseph Steiglitz on Newsnight now, quite interesting. And so should his new book be - 'The Euro and its threat to Europe' Well hang on a minute, are we listening to experts now or not?
Well you listen to them just not when they dont agree with you
I do tend to listen to experts, but the person who said to listen to him, usually says not to listen to experts, that's why I asked the question.
You don't know what an expert is.
Is it everyone on this forum apart from me?
Put it this way, stupid is as stupid does.
Well I do feel pretty stupid for continuing to post in this section of the forum when the rest of the sensible people have already fled.
Well this sensible person hasn't fled anywhere... But picking up on a couple of your points on which you base your thesis of Brexit being a disaster:
* No 'expert' has been in this economic or political situation before. Inter Alia there are no 'experts'. There are people with skills but no 'experts'.
* Every 'forecast' pre the Referendum has been proved wrong. Treasury ones spectacularly so. IMF and OECD ones equally so. Even your favourite IHS Markit 'experts' have now had to back their truck up and 'forecast' better numbers. No doubt they are still on the low side to mitigate their errors.
* You keep dropping in the £70 Bn of QE (that is actually £60 Bn and hasn't actually been spent yet) forgetting that it is an investment in Government Bonds just like the last dose of QE was. Except this time yields are already at an all time low so investors are being forced into other Bonds / Stocks. Of course in time any QE will provide a profit. And of course unlike our £13 Bn it stays in this country and doesn't waft off to the EU. This time we do not have a banking crisis just an issue of confidence that was damaged by the extraordinary Project Fear mounted by Osborne and the Treasury. And even post Brexit those who peddled it (like Mark Carney) have sought to make sure their prophesies are fulfilled even if this damages the UK. And why a 10 year, including the 2009 crisis, ex Governor has torn Osborne and Carney to shreds this week.
I must admit though I found your last few exchanges interesting though."Not only has Brexit not happened yet, the country is not even close to being in an economic, let alone a legal position to invoke Article 50. The forecasts were made on the invoking of Article 50 that was supposed to happen immediately after the referendum. It didn't happen, it still hasn't happened and it doesn't look like it will happen for a while yet. Whilst Brexit means Brexit, no one actually knows what Brexit means other than "leaving the EU without a plan." Fortunately, Prime Minister May wants a plan and that is why we have a delay and that is why the forecasters were not immediately correct, but given time they still could be. | |||
| |||
"There's an interesting article in the Guardian on company pensions deficits as a result of Brexit. The payments they will have to make as a result of falling yields due to employees contributing to company pension schemes will be that much greater. The research done by PwC found total assets of £1,450bn but liabilities of £2,160bn, this being a result of Brexit and falling interest rate on gilts. The result is private company pension schemes are unlikely to ever be offered again, companies are going to have to pick up the shortfall ie. cost savings measures, finding investment within those companies is going to be harder (think of BHS). https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/sep/01/uk-defined-benefit-pension-fund-deficit-grows-100bn-one-month-pwc " see post above yours | |||
" see post above yours" What is it you are referencing here? No we haven't left yet, though that doesn't mean the decision hasn't had negative impact on us. Mind expanding? | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ...
So you never started a thread called "can we define racism?" which I believe was about you racially upsetting people with your choice of language? No? That never happened?
Errr .. the Thread asked a question. And in my preamble I made it quite clear I felt I was NOT a bloody racist so where the HELL do you get off twisting that around then? Christ you have made some vicious and unfounded statements in your time but that has to be the worst.
I asked what makes people take offence when none is intended and when people use expressions that have been around for ages unchallenged. Indeed in this case where a very old and respected Scottish Regiment used the very term I used (and which was then called 'racist') about themselves.
But here we are again. A thread absolutely NOTHING to do with racism has been dragged into a racism issue by YOU. No one else. Just YOU!
You seem to enjoy wallowing in the role of victim. "yet another pathetic response from people who know exactly what they are doing and why they do it. Thread after Thread is distorted by you into some sort of 'ism' mainly 'racism'. And I am no victim and will never play one. I am standing up against disgusting accusations that are not supported by facts. But then as I have said when manipulative people like you resort to playing the racist card you have lost the factual argument. | |||
" Not only has Brexit not happened yet, the country is not even close to being in an economic, let alone a legal position to invoke Article 50. The forecasts were made on the invoking of Article 50 that was supposed to happen immediately after the referendum. It didn't happen, it still hasn't happened and it doesn't look like it will happen for a while yet. Whilst Brexit means Brexit, no one actually knows what Brexit means other than "leaving the EU without a plan." Fortunately, Prime Minister May wants a plan and that is why we have a delay and that is why the forecasters were not immediately correct, but given time they still could be." Well some might argue that in the circumstances laid out by Project Fear and all those 'experts' and their 'forecasts' it was the act of voting to leave that would call down doom and destruction, Armageddon, WWII and a plague of locusts not the invoking of Article 50. The 'experts' were saying 'do not vote to leave because ...'. Well we voted to leave and apart from drop in currency value ( a plus and minus event) some 2 months on we are actually doing quite well. We have a government with a very clear Brexit policy, Stock Markets at a 52 week high (and THAT is where the real money is) and countries more than willing to buy British goods and services. The only people to have suffered the reality of those 'forecasts' haven't been us Brits its been the Germans and others but then they know they are trapped in a failed political project and a doomed currency. | |||
" I haven’t once called you a racist, yet you have started threads about how racist you are. You call me and others racists repeatedly because its your fall back plan. Lose an argument and call people 'racists'. Or 'xenophobes'. Or whatever. I started a Thread and called myself a racist? I very much doubt it but the way you twist words I can see you trying to fabricate the event ...
So you never started a thread called "can we define racism?" which I believe was about you racially upsetting people with your choice of language? No? That never happened?
Errr .. the Thread asked a question. And in my preamble I made it quite clear I felt I was NOT a bloody racist so where the HELL do you get off twisting that around then? Christ you have made some vicious and unfounded statements in your time but that has to be the worst.
I asked what makes people take offence when none is intended and when people use expressions that have been around for ages unchallenged. Indeed in this case where a very old and respected Scottish Regiment used the very term I used (and which was then called 'racist') about themselves.
But here we are again. A thread absolutely NOTHING to do with racism has been dragged into a racism issue by YOU. No one else. Just YOU!
You seem to enjoy wallowing in the role of victim.
yet another pathetic response from people who know exactly what they are doing and why they do it. Thread after Thread is distorted by you into some sort of 'ism' mainly 'racism'. And I am no victim and will never play one. I am standing up against disgusting accusations that are not supported by facts. But then as I have said when manipulative people like you resort to playing the racist card you have lost the factual argument."Racism was a part of the campaign, racist attacks have increased since the referendum, these facts have been proved by multiple, reputable, independent sources. I don't know why you seem to take these facts so personally? Could it be a case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks"? | |||
" Not only has Brexit not happened yet, the country is not even close to being in an economic, let alone a legal position to invoke Article 50. The forecasts were made on the invoking of Article 50 that was supposed to happen immediately after the referendum. It didn't happen, it still hasn't happened and it doesn't look like it will happen for a while yet. Whilst Brexit means Brexit, no one actually knows what Brexit means other than "leaving the EU without a plan." Fortunately, Prime Minister May wants a plan and that is why we have a delay and that is why the forecasters were not immediately correct, but given time they still could be. Well some might argue that in the circumstances laid out by Project Fear and all those 'experts' and their 'forecasts' it was the act of voting to leave that would call down doom and destruction, Armageddon, WWII and a plague of locusts not the invoking of Article 50. The 'experts' were saying 'do not vote to leave because ...'. Well we voted to leave and apart from drop in currency value ( a plus and minus event) some 2 months on we are actually doing quite well. We have a government with a very clear Brexit policy, Stock Markets at a 52 week high (and THAT is where the real money is) and countries more than willing to buy British goods and services. The only people to have suffered the reality of those 'forecasts' haven't been us Brits its been the Germans and others but then they know they are trapped in a failed political project and a doomed currency." Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one predicted locusts and WWII finished 71 years ago. You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? | |||
" see post above yours What is it you are referencing here? No we haven't left yet, though that doesn't mean the decision hasn't had negative impact on us. Mind expanding? " all bad news is because of Brexit. all good news is because Brexit hasn't happenned yet
yes the pension deficit has grown but it was hardly in a good place before was it? It will take a better, stronger economy to bring the deficit down, which is what we will have when we have left the EU | |||
| |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum?" No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different." No, I tell people to listen to the experts. You deny that there even are such things as experts in any field, and so think that they should listen to you instead. | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. No, I tell people to listen to the experts. You deny that there even are such things as experts in any field, and so think that they should listen to you instead. " Oh dear. Do keep twisting but people can see what you are up to. I never said there were no 'experts' in any field. I said there were no 'experts' in a post Brexit vote UK. And events are proving those of us in the Brexit camp right and your 'experts' wrong so far. And where have I said people should listen to me? Do please copy / paste that statement. I just challenge your statements that in every case have been proved wrong and therefore undermine your basic thesis about Brexit. | |||
" yet another pathetic response from people who know exactly what they are doing and why they do it. .... But then as I have said when manipulative people like you resort to playing the racist card you have lost the factual argument." People? Why are you using not using the singular here? People like who? Where? Losing what factual argument? There is a two sided debate here. One which neither side knows the consequences of as neither has the outcome. Immigration and the UKip (kick the establishment protest vote) was a key factor in the success of Brexit win and leave campaign - you cannot deny that. The economy has taken a shock, you cannot deny that either. Where you plant your feet in the UK leaving the EU is down to personal reflection, though someone disagreeing with your view is hardly cause for you to announce that everyone is racist because of it. If you were to admit to the principles of how the outcome result was won, you would overturn the result if it was run again. I am not saying it needs to be run again though as you are not condemning the way it was run how can you condemn people for reminding you how it was won? | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different." Keep in mind the money illusion caused by devaluation. Those indexes traded in dollars are now worth less than before the vote. See the sale of ARM as a collary to that. We are for better or worse in the phoney war stage of BREXIT. The fun starts when article 50 is invoked. | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. Keep in mind the money illusion caused by devaluation. Those indexes traded in dollars are now worth less than before the vote. See the sale of ARM as a collary to that. We are for better or worse in the phoney war stage of BREXIT. The fun starts when article 50 is invoked." What about the end of the article 50 process? We are more than two years away from day 1 of Brexit. | |||
"I was firmly pro-Remain, but if the economy is doing well, genuinely doing well" So I guess you didn't think much of my first reply to the thread... | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. Morons with PhDs, tenure and Nobel Prizes? Like the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglist who I mentioned earlier? What are your opinions of this 'expert' who apparently said the UK would be better of in the EU yet last night on tv said the UK would be better off out of the EU? I haven't read much about what he has said to be honest, but as a nobel prize winning economist I would say that he is someone worth listening to on the economy. That's not to say that any single expert should be believed 100% and in isolation. So I would look at what he is saying, and look at what other credible, independent sources were also saying. Personally I would say that anyone who has earned a nobel prize would, in most people's opinions, qualify for the title of an expert in their field." Why? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence of what happens when they put their theories into practice? | |||
"The majority opinions shared on this section of the forum are climate change deniers, racism deniers, hate crime deniers, anti-intellectual, Putin supporters, Trump supporters. So I guess you put yourself in the anti-intellectual bucket then? Because I don’t share your view that an entire field of academic study and a whole industry is bollocks? Because you dismiss a scientific study that you haven't read, you ignore any information that contradicts your pre-held beliefs and refuse to answer the most basic of questions to have a discussion. You also simultaneously belief that nothing is wrong with economic forecasting whilst living through 8 years of stagnation and the people you put your faith in are the very ones who didn't spot the crash coming. Did I miss anything? Surely you are dismissing all of the scientific studies that think that economics is a relevant field of study? Give me a scientific study that 'thinks' economics is a relevant field of study. It's not an irrelevant field of study, it's just one that's been hijacked by morons. You know you still have supplied that what has been asked of you throughout all of this thread re. how Brier is scored. "It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. " Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. " Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? | |||
" What about the end of the article 50 process? We are more than two years away from day 1 of Brexit." Oh dear. Wrong again. Two years is the allowed time under Article 50. It is not the defined time. We could lodge Article 50 and leave in a week by repealing the relevant Acts of Parliament that subsumed us to the EU. Of course it suits your thesis on Brexit to make everything sound long winded and extended to increase the uncertainty. You really should have paid more attention to Mrs May yesterday. | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. Keep in mind the money illusion caused by devaluation. Those indexes traded in dollars are now worth less than before the vote. See the sale of ARM as a collary to that. We are for better or worse in the phoney war stage of BREXIT. The fun starts when article 50 is invoked." Those three FTSEs are denominated in Sterling. Devaluation has actually increased the Sterling value of UK Equities denominated in dollars overseas by some 10% overnight. It was explained very well in 2013 when the pound was again under discussion: http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/77393/why-falling-pound-good-news-ftse-100 | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? " Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. " If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. " Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. " Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. | |||
" What about the end of the article 50 process? We are more than two years away from day 1 of Brexit. Oh dear. Wrong again. Two years is the allowed time under Article 50. It is not the defined time. We could lodge Article 50 and leave in a week by repealing the relevant Acts of Parliament that subsumed us to the EU. Of course it suits your thesis on Brexit to make everything sound long winded and extended to increase the uncertainty. You really should have paid more attention to Mrs May yesterday." I know that two years is the allowed time! I have heard no one, apart from you, suggest that it is going to be quicker than that. We would we want to rush something so important? Conversely, I doubt either the 27 other member state or ourselves will want to extend it beyond the two years, but who knows, there could be quite a change in the faces around the table over the course of those two years and the that could have a big impact, as could other geopolitical events. In politics, two years is a long time. We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. | |||
" What about the end of the article 50 process? We are more than two years away from day 1 of Brexit. Oh dear. Wrong again. Two years is the allowed time under Article 50. It is not the defined time. We could lodge Article 50 and leave in a week by repealing the relevant Acts of Parliament that subsumed us to the EU. Of course it suits your thesis on Brexit to make everything sound long winded and extended to increase the uncertainty. You really should have paid more attention to Mrs May yesterday. I know that two years is the allowed time! I have heard no one, apart from you, suggest that it is going to be quicker than that. We would we want to rush something so important? Conversely, I doubt either the 27 other member state or ourselves will want to extend it beyond the two years, but who knows, there could be quite a change in the faces around the table over the course of those two years and the that could have a big impact, as could other geopolitical events. In politics, two years is a long time. We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. " when have we ever had an elected PM? | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits." Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant. | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant. "But parliament isn't really supreme. There's international law, WTO rules and whatever else you opt into. I'm sorry but too many Brits think that we can do whatever we want and the rest of the world will just drop their pants and say "you will use lube, won't you?" Seriously, read the Melian Dialogue, nothing has fundamentally changed about international politics since then and we're not a superpower anymore! | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant. "Sorry to burst your Brexit fantasies, but even unelected PMs have to abide by the rule of law. | |||
" Sorry to burst your Brexit fantasies, but even unelected PMs have to abide by the rule of law." Tony Blair says "i am the law" | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant.
Sorry to burst your Brexit fantasies, but even unelected PMs have to abide by the rule of law."What Brexit bloody fantasies? Those are Constitutional facts. You are free to discredit them with factual answers of course ... Oh wait you don't do factual do you? errr .. We just did the 'unelected PM' bit. You don't read too well do you? Unelected? To be a PM a) you must have been elected an MP by your Constituency electorate and b) elected Leader by the MPs of your party and c) convinced Her Majesty that you have the Confidence of the House. So there aren't actually 'unelected PMs'. But even elected PMs have to obey the law. So where is Theresa May breaking the law exactly? | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. " Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. | |||
"And to add to my guilt of my Schadenfreude I read today that the so called 'experts' IHS Markit who some were using as paragons of accuracy have now reported a huge change in one of their 'forecasts' this time in manufacturing: Quote The [IHS] Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) for the sector rose to 53.3 in August from July's figure of 48.3. A figure above 50 indicates the sector is expanding. However, the survey also indicated that the weaker pound had pushed up companies' costs. "The August PMI data indicate a solid rebound in the performance of the UK manufacturing sector from the steep downturn that followed the EU referendum," said Rob Dobson, senior economist at IHS Markit. "The domestic market showed a marked recovery, especially for consumer products, while the recent depreciation of sterling drove higher inflows of new business from the US, Europe, Scandinavia, Middle East and Asia," he added. Unquote. At the time, the July IHS Markit PMI figure was taken as immediate evidence of an impending downturn following the June referendum vote in favour of the UK leaving the EU. It was one of the pieces of evidence that contributed to the Bank of England's recent decision to cut its interest rate to 0.25%. But as Laith Khalaf, from the investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown, said the latest PMI figures now called the Bank's decision into question. In other words the profiteers like IHS Markit bounced the B of E into an unnecessary rate reduction with 'forecasts' of failure to force a currency value change to pocket profits. But as Khalaf notes "However, the gathering pile of robust economic data might start to dissuade policymakers from any further monetary easing," he added. Further reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37242804"
Yes it's been all over the main news channels today that UK manufacturing has just seen the biggest jump in growth in August 2016 for the last 25 years. This has been helped by the lower value of the pound, and non of the so called 'experts' predicted this. Many of these so called 'experts' who predicted doom and gloom and a UK recession are increasingly looking more and more foolish as the weeks pass by, they must be feeling pretty embarrassed by now about some of the wild claims they were making during the referendum campaign. It also appears now that the bank of England may have been a bit too hasty in lowering interest rates as the figures released today show the UK economy is in pretty good shape and the bank of England's intervention with interest rates was not needed.
I also notice all the Remoaners ignored your post which I quoted as it appears any good news goes straight over their heads but a bit of bad news and they are all over it like a tramp on chips. | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant.
But parliament isn't really supreme. There's international law, WTO rules and whatever else you opt into.
I'm sorry but too many Brits think that we can do whatever we want and the rest of the world will just drop their pants and say "you will use lube, won't you?"
Seriously, read the Melian Dialogue, nothing has fundamentally changed about international politics since then and we're not a superpower anymore! "We were discussing the UK and here Parliament IS supreme. Of course outside the UK we are just another country rubbing along as best we can and playing by the rules. Same as everyone else. Not sure we have the attitude you describe but we are all entitled to opinions .. And I think we got used to not being a Superpower about a day after WWII ended and we saw the debts. But we do have influence. We are the highest rated 'soft power' country in the world, we are still the 5th largest economy, permanent seat (and veto) at the UN Security Council, soon to have our full seat on the WTO and we are the lead country of the Commonwealth. I quite like how countries like the USA trade with us. We actually make a profit unlike with the EU... | |||
"And to add to my guilt of my Schadenfreude I read today that the so called 'experts' IHS Markit who some were using as paragons of accuracy have now reported a huge change in one of their 'forecasts' this time in manufacturing: Quote The [IHS] Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) for the sector rose to 53.3 in August from July's figure of 48.3. A figure above 50 indicates the sector is expanding. However, the survey also indicated that the weaker pound had pushed up companies' costs. "The August PMI data indicate a solid rebound in the performance of the UK manufacturing sector from the steep downturn that followed the EU referendum," said Rob Dobson, senior economist at IHS Markit. "The domestic market showed a marked recovery, especially for consumer products, while the recent depreciation of sterling drove higher inflows of new business from the US, Europe, Scandinavia, Middle East and Asia," he added. Unquote. At the time, the July IHS Markit PMI figure was taken as immediate evidence of an impending downturn following the June referendum vote in favour of the UK leaving the EU. It was one of the pieces of evidence that contributed to the Bank of England's recent decision to cut its interest rate to 0.25%. But as Laith Khalaf, from the investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown, said the latest PMI figures now called the Bank's decision into question. In other words the profiteers like IHS Markit bounced the B of E into an unnecessary rate reduction with 'forecasts' of failure to force a currency value change to pocket profits. But as Khalaf notes "However, the gathering pile of robust economic data might start to dissuade policymakers from any further monetary easing," he added. Further reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37242804
Yes it's been all over the main news channels today that UK manufacturing has just seen the biggest jump in growth in August 2016 for the last 25 years. This has been helped by the lower value of the pound, and non of the so called 'experts' predicted this. Many of these so called 'experts' who predicted doom and gloom and a UK recession are increasingly looking more and more foolish as the weeks pass by, they must be feeling pretty embarrassed by now about some of the wild claims they were making during the referendum campaign. It also appears now that the bank of England may have been a bit too hasty in lowering interest rates as the figures released today show the UK economy is in pretty good shape and the bank of England's intervention with interest rates was not needed.
I also notice all the Remoaners ignored your post which I quoted as it appears any good news goes straight over their heads but a bit of bad news and they are all over it like a tramp on chips. "Why are we not surprised?.... And the 'experts' concerned (IHS Markit) were being lauded by the Remoaners just two weeks ago when they forecast we were going down the tubes. (The fact that they were doing it to make a killing on the Currency markets was dismissed of course). | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. " I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate. | |||
" We don't even know if what the PM was saying yesterday will happen, there are still legal challenges to the vote in parliament for example. I find it funny that before the referendum you were spouting the importance of the sovereignty of parliament and not listening to "unelected" officials, yet now we have an unelected PM trying to circumvent parliament and you have had absolutely nothing to say about it, yet you are the first to call other people hypocrits. Your scrabbling to score points rather than discuss things gets worse by the day. OK lets correct you yet again.... I will believe the Prime Minister who will have had considerable legal and constitutional advice over a biased and ill informed individual like yourself. As for legal challenges to Parliament there can't be any. Parliament is Supreme and is in fact the ultimate Supreme Court. Legal challenges are in courts who administer the laws made by Parliament. Seems obvious but way over your head of course. As for a vote in Parliament we had that when Parliament voted by some 6:1 to have a Referendum and in so doing passed authority back to the people, who of course elect those same MPs. So the result of that Referendum is a binding decision requested by Parliament of the people. There will be no further votes needed in Parliament. I guess it escaped your notice that Theresa May was elected Leader of the ruling party by MPs and was unopposed afterwards so no further membership vote was required. She therefore could command the Confidence of the House. Her Majesty the Queen asked her if she could form a Government, May confirmed she could and was appointed Prime Minister. Again I guess Constitutional matters go over your head in your rush to score minutiae points but this is how it works in our Parliamentary Monarchy. We do not actually elect Prime Ministers. Never have. We elect MPs who elect a Parliamentary Leader to indicate to Her Majesty who will have that Confidence in the House to carry forward legislation. Given the Prime Minister has no need to circumvent, or is in any way circumventing, Parliament for the reasons I gave above your accusations of hypocrisy are pretty dim and irrelevant.
But parliament isn't really supreme. There's international law, WTO rules and whatever else you opt into.
I'm sorry but too many Brits think that we can do whatever we want and the rest of the world will just drop their pants and say "you will use lube, won't you?"
Seriously, read the Melian Dialogue, nothing has fundamentally changed about international politics since then and we're not a superpower anymore!
We were discussing the UK and here Parliament IS supreme. Of course outside the UK we are just another country rubbing along as best we can and playing by the rules. Same as everyone else.
Not sure we have the attitude you describe but we are all entitled to opinions .. And I think we got used to not being a Superpower about a day after WWII ended and we saw the debts.
But we do have influence. We are the highest rated 'soft power' country in the world, we are still the 5th largest economy, permanent seat (and veto) at the UN Security Council, soon to have our full seat on the WTO and we are the lead country of the Commonwealth. I quite like how countries like the USA trade with us. We actually make a profit unlike with the EU..."Highest rated soft power! That's like boasting about being the tallest dwarf. Parliament is not supreme in the UK, in the same way that France can't go around making bullshit laws that violate human rights. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate." You make a great point of noting Tetlock yet don't seem to have read the study itself. I have only glanced across it now and he uses qualitative data/methodology and tries to make probabilistic outcomes. In political science this could very easily impart observer bias. Where you say quantitative data is always used for forecasts, in the Brexit vote, which we are talking this is why he got it wrong, as opinion was not gained on essential data. It is why futures are open to manipulation because data can be overlooked, especially in economic forecasting where market gambling is rife. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate. You make a great point of noting Tetlock yet don't seem to have read the study itself. I have only glanced across it now and he uses qualitative data/methodology and tries to make probabilistic outcomes. In political science this could very easily impart observer bias. Where you say quantitative data is always used for forecasts, in the Brexit vote, which we are talking this is why he got it wrong, as opinion was not gained on essential data. It is why futures are open to manipulation because data can be overlooked, especially in economic forecasting where market gambling is rife. " I have read the study, I just don't think you've interpreted it properly. Only probabilistic forecasts can be measured, which is why political commentators love deterministic ones because they cannot be measured properly. Tetlock converted the deterministic forecasts into probabilistic ones by applying standard metrics to key phrases in the forecast (e.g. "a good chance" could equal 60% probability). Everyone got the same treatment and his findings were replicated in the good judgement project too. Tetlocks work has been reviewed by some of the toughest critics in the industry, like Nicholas Teleb (famous for "black swan") yet none of them have criticised the method for being biased. Maybe you saw something they didn't? Alternatively, what's your explanation for why so many 'experts' missed the 2008 crash? | |||
" I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate. You make a great point of noting Tetlock yet don't seem to have read the study itself. I have only glanced across it now and he uses qualitative data/methodology and tries to make probabilistic outcomes. In political science this could very easily impart observer bias. Where you say quantitative data is always used for forecasts, in the Brexit vote, which we are talking this is why he got it wrong, as opinion was not gained on essential data. It is why futures are open to manipulation because data can be overlooked, especially in economic forecasting where market gambling is rife. " Perhaps you should think about the issue another way. There was a famous study where a psychologist gave a bunch a students a 'personality test' and then showed them a profile of themselves. He asked them to score the profile for accuracy. On average they scored it 4.2/5 for accuracy. They had all been given the same profile. It was taken from an astrology book and the language was as vague as a politician explaining their expenses. In the same way, nearly all the forecasts you see in the media are deterministic crap of the same nature. Someone went to the effort of making them measurable and found what most people already knew, that the predictions were a bit shit. How else would you approach the problem other than the way he did? | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate. You make a great point of noting Tetlock yet don't seem to have read the study itself. I have only glanced across it now and he uses qualitative data/methodology and tries to make probabilistic outcomes. In political science this could very easily impart observer bias. Where you say quantitative data is always used for forecasts, in the Brexit vote, which we are talking this is why he got it wrong, as opinion was not gained on essential data. It is why futures are open to manipulation because data can be overlooked, especially in economic forecasting where market gambling is rife. I have read the study, I just don't think you've interpreted it properly. Only probabilistic forecasts can be measured, which is why political commentators love deterministic ones because they cannot be measured properly. Tetlock converted the deterministic forecasts into probabilistic ones by applying standard metrics to key phrases in the forecast (e.g. "a good chance" could equal 60% probability). Everyone got the same treatment and his findings were replicated in the good judgement project too. Tetlocks work has been reviewed by some of the toughest critics in the industry, like Nicholas Teleb (famous for "black swan") yet none of them have criticised the method for being biased. Maybe you saw something they didn't? Alternatively, what's your explanation for why so many 'experts' missed the 2008 crash? " Apologies I made a error on one of my previous posts 'Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised)' should have read qualitative, though my later post possibly cleared that up. Tetlock is a social psychologist who is applying science to feeling and judgement in creating policy, his methodology will no doubt have come under scrutiny.1 for the longevity and 2. for the wide array of experts he groups - it again tells us why he got the Brexit vote wrong as he missed underlying ill feeling within UK society. It stands to reason that he deals with analysing feeling, as he would be in a different field if his interest lay solely in statistical data gathering. Now you are asking why so many did not see the 2008 crash? Many did, though they were focused in business or banking not focused on judgements in creating policy. | |||
" It is a measure of how accurate your predictions are. It measures the delta between the prediction and outcome. So if you made 10 predictions with 70% confidence that each of them would happen, but only 5 happened, then the brier score is a formula that measures the difference between the 7 you predicted and the 5 that happened. It's accuracy basically. Thanks, so it's a measure of probability - where markets will always be open to maniplation. Sorry I don't get the reference to markets? Well I'd guess it's not a finite tool but economics were mentioned so I thought markets. There is no reason why probability scores like these can't be used in different sectors, though reading back it looks like your guy Tetlock (sp) might have applied it in a qualitative study, which again is vastly open to interpretation and highly unlikely to achieve the same results again. If you Google "expert political judgement pdf" you can see the study and it's process. It's quantitative in nature, as all probabilistic forecasting has to be. I see no reason why the results wouldn't be replicated. Well he got the Brexit vote wrong, probably due to there being no precedent. Though there have been protest that have risen from nowhere. Wonder if he'll get the current US vote right. Firstly, Tetlocks own forecasting ability has little relevance to his ability to perform a study on the subject, just as I can measure Jamie Vardys shooting accuracy without playing in the premier league myself. Secondly, you make a logical error with probability. If Tetlock says there's an 80% probability of remain, that means there's a 20% of leave. We don't get to run multiple iterations of the referendum to see if 80/100 time we would vote leave, although some people would like to. The only way you can definitively say he was wrong is to take 10 forecasts he made with an 80% probability and see whether more or less than 2 were 'wrong'. And that's what we use a Brier score for. Lol you are assuming he is correct in his observations and not fitting the values to fit his hypothesis, as a 20 year study will no doubt have values that would have changed incredibly. You may as well flip a coin multiple times to gain the necessary result. Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised), so by increasing the number of times he can re run the tests he increases the chances of getting the results he needs. "It is a vision of knowledge as a process of slowly but meaningfully upping the chance of being right — while acknowledging that it all remains a gamble" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/803a430a-442b-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html Nash and Equilibrium /game theory at least hung its hat out as crude a theory as it is. I'm not sure how to respond because it didn't really make much sense. As I say, the study is freely available online and I'd love to know which part of the method you think is subject and easy to manipulate. You make a great point of noting Tetlock yet don't seem to have read the study itself. I have only glanced across it now and he uses qualitative data/methodology and tries to make probabilistic outcomes. In political science this could very easily impart observer bias. Where you say quantitative data is always used for forecasts, in the Brexit vote, which we are talking this is why he got it wrong, as opinion was not gained on essential data. It is why futures are open to manipulation because data can be overlooked, especially in economic forecasting where market gambling is rife. I have read the study, I just don't think you've interpreted it properly. Only probabilistic forecasts can be measured, which is why political commentators love deterministic ones because they cannot be measured properly. Tetlock converted the deterministic forecasts into probabilistic ones by applying standard metrics to key phrases in the forecast (e.g. "a good chance" could equal 60% probability). Everyone got the same treatment and his findings were replicated in the good judgement project too. Tetlocks work has been reviewed by some of the toughest critics in the industry, like Nicholas Teleb (famous for "black swan") yet none of them have criticised the method for being biased. Maybe you saw something they didn't? Alternatively, what's your explanation for why so many 'experts' missed the 2008 crash? Apologies I made a error on one of my previous posts 'Tetlock does realise deterministic outcomes are not possible through quantitative methods (as is widely recognised)' should have read qualitative, though my later post possibly cleared that up. Tetlock is a social psychologist who is applying science to feeling and judgement in creating policy, his methodology will no doubt have come under scrutiny.1 for the longevity and 2. for the wide array of experts he groups - it again tells us why he got the Brexit vote wrong as he missed underlying ill feeling within UK society. It stands to reason that he deals with analysing feeling, as he would be in a different field if his interest lay solely in statistical data gathering. Now you are asking why so many did not see the 2008 crash? Many did, though they were focused in business or banking not focused on judgements in creating policy." I've already explained to you that your statement about the forecast being wrong is a misuse of probability and it's irrelevant to the study. | |||
| |||
" I've already explained to you that your statement about the forecast being wrong is a misuse of probability and it's irrelevant to the study. " But you haven't accepted that Tetlock himself accepts that the study itself is fallible (largely due to judgements being adaptive nature or observer bias). If the study can be applied cross culturally with success then he has something but it hasn't been which is why he didn't have success in his analysis of the Brexit vote. | |||
"While were talking forecasts didnt the experts forecast armageddon if we even voted to leave yet yesterday results came out showing the biggest growth in manufacturing in 30 years and thats in one month " Greatest rebound from one month in 30 years being a snapback from the previous low number. | |||
| |||
" I've already explained to you that your statement about the forecast being wrong is a misuse of probability and it's irrelevant to the study. But you haven't accepted that Tetlock himself accepts that the study itself is fallible (largely due to judgements being adaptive nature or observer bias). If the study can be applied cross culturally with success then he has something but it hasn't been which is why he didn't have success in his analysis of the Brexit vote." His study and the Brexit forecast are not related. Why do you think they are? | |||
" I've already explained to you that your statement about the forecast being wrong is a misuse of probability and it's irrelevant to the study. But you haven't accepted that Tetlock himself accepts that the study itself is fallible (largely due to judgements being adaptive nature or observer bias). If the study can be applied cross culturally with success then he has something but it hasn't been which is why he didn't have success in his analysis of the Brexit vote. His study and the Brexit vote are in no way related. Why do you think they are? " 1. Because he did one (see link above) and 2. Because you mention the Brier score so much in making probabilistic outcomes. If you do not see the problems with the Brier score please look up University of London: Solving the problem of inadequate scoring rules for assessing probabilistic football forecasting models. Section 4: Implications and conclusions The validity of the conclusions drawn, lay in the methodology of the data collected. | |||
" I've already explained to you that your statement about the forecast being wrong is a misuse of probability and it's irrelevant to the study. But you haven't accepted that Tetlock himself accepts that the study itself is fallible (largely due to judgements being adaptive nature or observer bias). If the study can be applied cross culturally with success then he has something but it hasn't been which is why he didn't have success in his analysis of the Brexit vote. His study and the Brexit vote are in no way related. Why do you think they are? 1. Because he did one (see link above) and 2. Because you mention the Brier score so much in making probabilistic outcomes. If you do not see the problems with the Brier score please look up University of London: Solving the problem of inadequate scoring rules for assessing probabilistic football forecasting models. Section 4: Implications and conclusions The validity of the conclusions drawn, lay in the methodology of the data collected. " I will look it up, but the study was published 9 years before Brexit so they can't possibly be related. | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. Keep in mind the money illusion caused by devaluation. Those indexes traded in dollars are now worth less than before the vote. See the sale of ARM as a collary to that. We are for better or worse in the phoney war stage of BREXIT. The fun starts when article 50 is invoked. Those three FTSEs are denominated in Sterling. Devaluation has actually increased the Sterling value of UK Equities denominated in dollars overseas by some 10% overnight. It was explained very well in 2013 when the pound was again under discussion: http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/77393/why-falling-pound-good-news-ftse-100" If I was a foreign owner of a UK asset it has become less valuable. Of course if I am a foreign buyer I might be interested in picking up a bargain as it has become cheaper to buy. The more cautious overseas investors may be expecting a further devaluation and wait for that before outbidding uk people | |||
" You say that the stock markets are great, here is what the MPC say "In contrast to the global picture, UK-focused asset prices had continued to imply a weaker outlook for the domestic economy than had been the case prior to the referendum. The sterling trade-weighted effective exchange rate was around 10% lower than the conditioning assumption in the May Inflation Report. UK- focused equity prices within the FTSE All-Share Index, including for UK banks, had stabilised on the month, but had remained below their pre-referendum levels” So should people listen to the MPC, or to some guy on a swingers forum? No 'people' should maybe realise there are no post Brexit 'experts' and unlike you I do not put myself up as an expert and arbiter of truth in all matters. I just highlight obviously incorrect 'forecasts' and numbers. Now lets get some context: The MPC were referring to the FTES 250 and 350 "UK-focused assets" which, at the time, had lagged the increase in the value of the FTSE100. Markets have moved on considerably since then. Since September 2015: FTSE100: Up from 6050 to 6800 (+ 12.4%) via 5530 in February. FTSE250: Up from 16800 to 17800 (+ 6%) via 15250 in February and June. FTSE350: Up from 3400 to 3750 (+ 10.3%) via 3100 in February. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/markets/europe/lse_ukx So yeah the Markets (where the REAL money is) are doing great. But if the MPC were falling for their own Governor's part in Project Fear then more fool them. The numbers say different. No, I tell people to listen to the experts. You deny that there even are such things as experts in any field, and so think that they should listen to you instead. " So, YET AGAIN I ASK YOU, which of the experts that you keep telling us to listen to, and that you put all of your faith in, forecast the global economic crash of 2008/09? | |||
"While were talking forecasts didnt the experts forecast armageddon if we even voted to leave yet yesterday results came out showing the biggest growth in manufacturing in 30 years and thats in one month Greatest rebound from one month in 30 years being a snapback from the previous low number." No actually best three month figures for thirty years and as july was bad makes them even better | |||
" So, YET AGAIN I ASK YOU, which of the experts that you keep telling us to listen to, and that you put all of your faith in, forecast the global economic crash of 2008/09? " Nouriel Roubini Ann Pettifog Steve Keen Dean Baker Raghuram Rajan Peter Schiff William White to name but a few. | |||
" So, YET AGAIN I ASK YOU, which of the experts that you keep telling us to listen to, and that you put all of your faith in, forecast the global economic crash of 2008/09? Nouriel Roubini Ann Pettifog Steve Keen Dean Baker Raghuram Rajan Peter Schiff William White to name but a few." what about the IMF, OECD, BOE, ECB, et al that you constantly quote as the experts? And as you are so happy to now quote Steve Keen, (whom I think makes a lot of sense) he actually supported Brexit. | |||
" So, YET AGAIN I ASK YOU, which of the experts that you keep telling us to listen to, and that you put all of your faith in, forecast the global economic crash of 2008/09? Nouriel Roubini Ann Pettifog Steve Keen Dean Baker Raghuram Rajan Peter Schiff William White to name but a few." Well every day is a school day they say. I have never heard of any of these so called 'experts'... | |||
| |||
