BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
morstar wrote:
Where do you stand on buses as a mechanism for informing opinions?Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it
You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
The bus was a master stroke, hence why remoaners are still bitter about it
Nothing wrong with putting the gross figure on the side of the bus and then force remain to regularly point out the huge net figure. Currently £1bn a month0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:
Where do you stand on buses as a mechanism for informing opinions?Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
The bus was a master stroke, hence why remoaners are still bitter about it
Nothing wrong with putting the gross figure on the side of the bus and then force remain to regularly point out the huge net figure. Currently £1bn a month
If we accept that both the bus and the forecast are misinformation...
Your point reduces to people are idiots if they believe misinformation that supports a point you don't agree with. Whereas misinformation is good if it supports a point you do agree with.
Glad you cleared that up.0 -
morstar wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
A forecast is an educated guess. And in general the longer the timeline, the less accurate a forecast is likely to be.morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
The main problem with your point above is that we are trying to compare future actual economic performance to a performance in a hypotherical future scenario of us not leaving - which may or may not be right. So there is no way of knowing if the variation between the two is valid or not.
I was more just making a case for why forecasting is worthwhile but to respond to your particular point...
Agreed, we are talking about comparing one forecast to another. Both are inherently wrong and more so the further out you look.
That doesn't however mean that sensible comparisons can't be made between different likely outcomes. There is nothing wrong with that exercise. The only question here is whether you agree with the assumptions of the forecast models used.
Obviously they are subjective and the crowd has partisan opinions.
I guess the fact that nobody is making an economic case for Brexit, there are some fairly widely accepted economic consequences.
Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.0 -
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Interesting, but what is the connection with Brexit?Robert88 wrote:Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
TheBigBean wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
For everybody else think of an economic forecast as predicting who will win the league rather than the exact outcome of each match.
So we have pound down, inflation up, house market falling and economy £60bn lower than it otherwise would have been0 -
Forecasts can be quite a bit more than educated guesses.Stevo 666 wrote:
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
A forecast model can be continually refined to improve accuracy. A bit different to a punt as forecast models are proven in daily life to exceed human performance in many areas.
Not for one second saying they are right or don't lose accuracy over longer periods though.
Weather & stock market algorithms aren't some bright fella making guesses.0 -
Have a read of the book 'Chaos' by James Gleick on the futility of long range forecasting. Even when it is done by the most powerful supercomputers on the planet rather than by bright people, as you say.morstar wrote:
Forecasts can be quite a bit more than educated guesses.Stevo 666 wrote:
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
A forecast model can be continually refined to improve accuracy. A bit different to a punt as forecast models are proven in daily life to exceed human performance in many areas.
Not for one second saying they are right or don't lose accuracy over longer periods though.
Weather & stock market algorithms aren't some bright fella making guesses."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Have a read of the book 'Chaos' by James Gleick on the futility of long range forecasting. Even when it is done by the most powerful supercomputers on the planet rather than by bright people, as you say.morstar wrote:
Forecasts can be quite a bit more than educated guesses.Stevo 666 wrote:
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
A forecast model can be continually refined to improve accuracy. A bit different to a punt as forecast models are proven in daily life to exceed human performance in many areas.
Not for one second saying they are right or don't lose accuracy over longer periods though.
Weather & stock market algorithms aren't some bright fella making guesses.
Of course long range forecasting is not futile - Insurance companies would not be in business if it was. It is necessary to have reasonable expectations about what it can achieve.
For example I have a personal theory about weather forecasting: I suspect that reports of increased accuracy are due to better communications between points on the globe as much as to super computing power used to produce the forecasts. Naturally computing power is crucial but it can only deal with the information available and there is never enough information.0 -
Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Have a read of the book 'Chaos' by James Gleick on the futility of long range forecasting. Even when it is done by the most powerful supercomputers on the planet rather than by bright people, as you say.morstar wrote:
Forecasts can be quite a bit more than educated guesses.Stevo 666 wrote:
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
A forecast model can be continually refined to improve accuracy. A bit different to a punt as forecast models are proven in daily life to exceed human performance in many areas.
Not for one second saying they are right or don't lose accuracy over longer periods though.
Weather & stock market algorithms aren't some bright fella making guesses.
Of course long range forecasting is not futile - Insurance companies would not be in business if it was. It is necessary to have reasonable expectations about what it can achieve.
For example I have a personal theory about weather forecasting: I suspect that reports of increased accuracy are due to better communications between points on the globe as much as to super computing power used to produce the forecasts. Naturally computing power is crucial but it can only deal with the information available and there is never enough information.
Ai is frequently developed to deal with missing information.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.0 -
Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?[/quote]
Go and read his explanation for why he could not make it work again and try to understand it as you are clearly having issues. None of it was to do with Brexit.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Interesting, but what is the connection with Brexit?Robert88 wrote:Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?
Brexit's been properly shoehorned into that metaphor.0 -
It's not so much the benefits that are the problem with HS2, it's the costs of building it.TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.0 -
elbowloh wrote:
It's not so much the benefits that are the problem with HS2, it's the costs of building it.TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
There is less certainty on the quantum of economic benefits than the build costs though.0 -
We've noticed.Alejandrosdog wrote:Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Have a read of the book 'Chaos' by James Gleick on the futility of long range forecasting. Even when it is done by the most powerful supercomputers on the planet rather than by bright people, as you say.morstar wrote:
Forecasts can be quite a bit more than educated guesses.Stevo 666 wrote:
They're educated guesses, a bit like the forecasts - as mentioned above.TailWindHome wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:morstar wrote:Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
I have no problem with 12-24 month forecasts. They will be wrong though and we all know this. However this is an 11 year forecast and remainers blindly accept and promote it You are an idiot if you believe an 11 year economic forecast, especially one as complex as trade!
Just like you are an idiot if you believed Osborne's 14 year economic forecasts in 2016 and made your referendum choice on it!
If you don't accept longer range forecast models how would you suggest longer term decisions are made?
A forecast model can be continually refined to improve accuracy. A bit different to a punt as forecast models are proven in daily life to exceed human performance in many areas.
Not for one second saying they are right or don't lose accuracy over longer periods though.
Weather & stock market algorithms aren't some bright fella making guesses.
Of course long range forecasting is not futile - Insurance companies would not be in business if it was. It is necessary to have reasonable expectations about what it can achieve.
For example I have a personal theory about weather forecasting: I suspect that reports of increased accuracy are due to better communications between points on the globe as much as to super computing power used to produce the forecasts. Naturally computing power is crucial but it can only deal with the information available and there is never enough information.
Ai is frequently developed to deal with missing information.0 -
john80 wrote:Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?
Go and read his explanation for why he could not make it work again and try to understand it as you are clearly having issues. None of it was to do with Brexit.[/quote]
No one said it was. Read the post again.0 -
You say that, but I'd say that the costs have been revised much more frequently and to a greater degree than the estimated benefits.TheBigBean wrote:elbowloh wrote:
It's not so much the benefits that are the problem with HS2, it's the costs of building it.TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
There is less certainty on the quantum of economic benefits than the build costs though.0 -
No one said it was. Read the post again.[/quote]darkhairedlord wrote:john80 wrote:Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?
Go and read his explanation for why he could not make it work again and try to understand it as you are clearly having issues. None of it was to do with Brexit.
Being cynical though, if brexit was one of the contributing factors there is no way he would come out and say so.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits0 -
Big decisions aren't taken on financial grounds, political innitSurrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits0 -
Forecasting: Stop thinking of it as an absolute exercise in predicting the future. It's a tool to measure against and plan with.
A business sets a target of doubling turnover from £50M to £100M over 5 years.
It doesn't use a forecast and after 2 years they are at £60M. They have no idea whether they are on target or not. Linearly, they don't appear to be, but there are lots of indicators the growth may trend upwards.
A second business shares the same target and has a forecast based on all manner of defined assumptions. After 2 years, they are also at £60M but have a clear understanding of what is working, what isn't and where opportunities/challenges are presenting themselves. They continually revise the forecast and possibly the plan, making informed decisions.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits
Sure. Lots of studies which identify possible benefits and possible risks. How do you combine them all together? For example, what is the probability that cheap autonomous cars driving 10m apart are available by the time HS2 starts? What impact would this have on demand for HS2? No one can answer those questions, they just have to accept that there is a risk.
If you look at major PFI failures, they are nearly all transport projects where demand wasn't what people thought it would be.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits
Sure. Lots of studies which identify possible benefits and possible risks. How do you combine them all together? For example, what is the probability that cheap autonomous cars driving 10m apart are available by the time HS2 starts? What impact would this have on demand for HS2? No one can answer those questions, they just have to accept that there is a risk.
If you look at major PFI failures, they are nearly all transport projects where demand wasn't what people thought it would be.
I still think you are yanking my chain so will resist the urge to explain how forecasts are built.0 -
No one said it was. Read the post again.[/quote]darkhairedlord wrote:john80 wrote:Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?
Go and read his explanation for why he could not make it work again and try to understand it as you are clearly having issues. None of it was to do with Brexit.
Are you sure about that. I have posted the wording from the original thread below. Is Brexit really stopping an international company contemplating making an electric car in Singapore to a world wide market stop their plans?
morstar wrote:
Stevo 666 wrote:
morstar wrote:
Ah the myth of forecasts being lies.
A forecast is what it is. A forecast. However, with one, you can measure actual performance vs it. If you exceed it, you know things are going well, if you fall short, you have early notice that expectations are not being met and can respond.
Organisations that don't forecast tend to be much slower to react to variances as they can only measure actuals retrospectively and against prior years. Prior years may be based on an entirely different cost /business model whereas your forecast is based on your corresponding model for that period.
A forecast is an educated guess. And in general the longer the timeline, the less accurate a forecast is likely to be.
The main problem with your point above is that we are trying to compare future actual economic performance to a performance in a hypotherical future scenario of us not leaving - which may or may not be right. So there is no way of knowing if the variation between the two is valid or not.
I was more just making a case for why forecasting is worthwhile but to respond to your particular point...
Agreed, we are talking about comparing one forecast to another. Both are inherently wrong and more so the further out you look.
That doesn't however mean that sensible comparisons can't be made between different likely outcomes. There is nothing wrong with that exercise. The only question here is whether you agree with the assumptions of the forecast models used.
Obviously they are subjective and the crowd has partisan opinions.
I guess the fact that nobody is making an economic case for Brexit, there are some fairly widely accepted economic consequences.
Talking of economic consequences I see that ardent Brexiter James Dyson has scrapped his electric car because it was not going to be economically viable.
He had tried to do a deal but other companies were not interested and he felt unable to compete on his own.
I wonder if he still thinks Brexit is a good idea?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits
Sure. Lots of studies which identify possible benefits and possible risks. How do you combine them all together? For example, what is the probability that cheap autonomous cars driving 10m apart are available by the time HS2 starts? What impact would this have on demand for HS2? No one can answer those questions, they just have to accept that there is a risk.
If you look at major PFI failures, they are nearly all transport projects where demand wasn't what people thought it would be.
Is that poor modelling of the demand or politicised interpretation of that modelling?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Daniel Boffey
@DanielBoffey
· 7m
NEW: Michel Barnier has got green light from the EU27 for there to be tunnel negotiations
Game on“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rjsterry wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:
They are tricky e.g. HS2. There is no reliable way of forecasting the impact, so how do they make a decision? I'd imagine mostly someone just takes punt.
No they don’t.
Without wishing to go all pantomime, yes they do. If the economic benefits of HS2 were certain, they wouldn't be reviewing the whole thing having already spent billions.
I think you are being disingenuous suggesting "mostly somebody just takes a punt" as I am sure you are well aware that there were enormous studies done to assess the costs and benefits
Sure. Lots of studies which identify possible benefits and possible risks. How do you combine them all together? For example, what is the probability that cheap autonomous cars driving 10m apart are available by the time HS2 starts? What impact would this have on demand for HS2? No one can answer those questions, they just have to accept that there is a risk.
If you look at major PFI failures, they are nearly all transport projects where demand wasn't what people thought it would be.
Is that poor modelling of the demand or politicised interpretation of that modelling?
In the case of a lot of PFIs it was a private sector risk, so that removes the political element. There would have been an independent forecaster on whose recommendations the private sector relied. Clearly, there are also many examples worldwide where no doubt politics has played a part.
Poor modelling implies negligence and a PI claim. I'm sure that has happened too.
In most cases, there are too many variables and unknowns to do it accurately which is the point I was making. It's (mathematical) chaos which is the point I suspect Stevo was making.
A quick google reveals various studies into traffic forecasts being so bad.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:
I still think you are yanking my chain so will resist the urge to explain how forecasts are built.
No chain yanking.0
