BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

Can I suggest that the forecast deniers read up upon economic modelling.

When you accept the referendum forecasts were political rather than economic we will let you join the grown-up conversation

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Weather forecasting: just because forecasts 'go wrong' doesn't mean that the Met Office doesn't forecast or stop analysing where divergences occur and why. That's why forecasting has got more accurate, both in day-to-day terms, and in climate trends. The current state of weather forecasting is indeed entirely based on making the best extrapolations from analysing historical data, creating various models based on that data, then comparing the outcomes of those models with actual weather.

It's a given that no weather forecasts can 'guarantee' their reliability to a specific accuracy, but they increasingly understand how reliable their probability of accuracy is, specifically because they compare the modelling & forecasts to the actual weather and climate. We'd not think much of them if they just said "no point in forecasting, as we know we'll get weather, whatever we do".

More specifically, what we do to mitigate climate change, given the projections suggested by climate science, could be rather important... "oh well, whatevs!" might not be the best course of action.

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are mixing up two different things and trying to equate the two.

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

rick_chasey

Yes back home now.

Resting up.

First proper sleep since Wednesday night.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Somehow had the forecast shown Brexit was an economic master stroke I don’t think we’d be having this argument with Stevo.

The point is still valid either way. Problem is, some people.seem incapable.of understanding the issues with predicting the behaviour of complex systems over longer periods of time.

rick_chasey

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

Stevo_666

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Weather forecasting: just because forecasts 'go wrong' doesn't mean that the Met Office doesn't forecast or stop analysing where divergences occur and why. That's why forecasting has got more accurate, both in day-to-day terms, and in climate trends. The current state of weather forecasting is indeed entirely based on making the best extrapolations from analysing historical data, creating various models based on that data, then comparing the outcomes of those models with actual weather.

It's a given that no weather forecasts can 'guarantee' their reliability to a specific accuracy, but they increasingly understand how reliable their probability of accuracy is, specifically because they compare the modelling & forecasts to the actual weather and climate. We'd not think much of them if they just said "no point in forecasting, as we know we'll get weather, whatever we do".

More specifically, what we do to mitigate climate change, given the projections suggested by climate science, could be rather important... "oh well, whatevs!" might not be the best course of action.

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are taking two different things and trying to equate the two. [Edit: the level of greenhouse gases is only one input variable into the complex system of the Worlds weather.]

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

As explained above.

I can't see how anyone can state the future as fact.

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

Why do you think Boris/Mogg/Farage all accept that the referendum has had a negative economic impact?

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are mixing up two different things and trying to equate the two.

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

Nope, I'm not mixing up the two, though of course the two are related: the sort of weather patterns we're seeing now (e.g. Australia) are the result of, and have been predicted by the climate change scientists.

Somewhere in the middle is what the Met Office call long-range predictions, and that is very much part of their remit. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/user-guide

"As a result, the forecast is useful to assess likelihood and risk, but not for warning of definite events." The sort of thing you might do for an economy...

ballysmate

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

Why do you think Boris/Mogg/Farage all accept that the referendum has had a negative economic impact?

They may believe something that can't be proved as fact.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

I'll bite. When is the next recession going to be? How many economists forecast a recession in 2008 in any of the years prior to it?

When the UK has a recession in the next 10 years, what sectors will grow after the recession, what will lead the recovery?

Longshot

TheBlueBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

I'll bite. When is the next recession going to be? How many economists forecast a recession in 2008 in any of the years prior to it?

When the UK has a recession in the next 10 years, what sectors will grow after the recession, what will lead the recovery?

Vitriol production.

TheBigBean

Longshot said:

TheBlueBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

I'll bite. When is the next recession going to be? How many economists forecast a recession in 2008 in any of the years prior to it?

When the UK has a recession in the next 10 years, what sectors will grow after the recession, what will lead the recovery?

Vitriol production.

I could be wrong, but I think Twitter already owns that one.

Longshot

I don't care which side of this debate you're on, this is funny.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

thecycleclinic said:

FTA agreements dont create alot of growth. The deal with the eu through membership gives a decent boost still only worth 1% or so of gdp I believe. It may be more but less than ones thinks. a gooddealwitht the usa will add maybe 0.2% to gdp. Not to besniffes at but nothing to get excited about either. Most of us wont notice. Trade with the rest of world is even less significant. Trade deals already exist with many coj tries through the eu so bilateral deals will be merely replacing existing deals but perhaps not on the same terms perhaps not as favourable for the u.k

If the point of leaving the eu is trade deals then the public are going to be disappointed at how little difference they make to public.

Looking at your point from the other angle, people may be pleasantly surprised at how little negative effect leaving the EU has on them. Contrary to the sort of scenarios put forward in here.

The pleasantness of their surprise would be inversely proportionate to their understanding of compound growth

Given the percentages and timescales they are unlikely to notice. That's before you consider there is no alternative timeline to compare to (I.e. no way they can see what it would have been like had we not left) - hence no reference point.

I didn't think this (as suggested from page 1354) was about the future, but was about looking back from the future at alternative (modelled) paths that could have been taken with different decisions based on assumptions from the performance of other countries. In the absence of alternative universes, it would have some value in determining at that point whether it was a sound decision and help in making future decisions.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

Why do you think Boris/Mogg/Farage all accept that the referendum has had a negative economic impact?

They may believe something that can't be proved as fact.

The majority of available evidence strongly supports that case. Feel free to dig out some evidence that shows a positive impact.

surrey_commuter

TheBlueBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

I'll bite. When is the next recession going to be? How many economists forecast a recession in 2008 in any of the years prior to it?

When the UK has a recession in the next 10 years, what sectors will grow after the recession, what will lead the recovery?

who would forecast a recession and do nothing about it? the fact that you mitigated the risk does not mean that the forecast was wrong.

Do you really believe that you can not model the economic implications of leaving the EU and how that will differ with different levels of access to the SM?

tailwindhome

Luckily we never know the impact on the economy of a recession.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are mixing up two different things and trying to equate the two.

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

Nope, I'm not mixing up the two, though of course the two are related: the sort of weather patterns we're seeing now (e.g. Australia) are the result of, and have been predicted by the climate change scientists.

Somewhere in the middle is what the Met Office call long-range predictions, and that is very much part of their remit. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/user-guide

"As a result, the forecast is useful to assess likelihood and risk, but not for warning of definite events." The sort of thing you might do for an economy...

You definitely are - as mentioned above, one is an input variable into the other.

So, about the weather on 20th November? Any predictions? Same point applies for what our GDP might be in 10 years time if we had never left the EU. You simply don't know.

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

Luckily we never know the impact on the economy of a recession.

No point in trying to avoid another global financial crisis, we can't know if things would have been worse without it. It's just not possible to know if it was positive or negative.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBlueBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s really embarrassing is the cost to the tax man of the loss of growth is more than what the U.K. has ever given the EU.

That is assuming that the prediction was correct, no?
Can't be proved either way.

You really should read up on macro-economic modelling.

I'll bite. When is the next recession going to be? How many economists forecast a recession in 2008 in any of the years prior to it?

When the UK has a recession in the next 10 years, what sectors will grow after the recession, what will lead the recovery?

who would forecast a recession and do nothing about it? the fact that you mitigated the risk does not mean that the forecast was wrong.

Do you really believe that you can not model the economic implications of leaving the EU and how that will differ with different levels of access to the SM?

Happy with short term forecasts being used as estimates, but I think long term forecasts are disingenuous as they don't consider how things evolve to adapt.

coopster_the_1st

The short and long term economic forecasts upon leaving were never going to be accurate as they were politically driven rather than economic. And that ignores how inaccurate they usually are.

diplodicus

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are mixing up two different things and trying to equate the two.

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

Nope, I'm not mixing up the two, though of course the two are related: the sort of weather patterns we're seeing now (e.g. Australia) are the result of, and have been predicted by the climate change scientists.

Somewhere in the middle is what the Met Office call long-range predictions, and that is very much part of their remit. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/user-guide

"As a result, the forecast is useful to assess likelihood and risk, but not for warning of definite events." The sort of thing you might do for an economy...

You definitely are - as mentioned above, one is an input variable into the other.

So, about the weather on 20th November? Any predictions? Same point applies for what our GDP might be in 10 years time if we had never left the EU. You simply don't know.

It'll be coldish 10° to 12° with light cloud and a 45% chance of rain...

HTH

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

thecycleclinic said:

FTA agreements dont create alot of growth. The deal with the eu through membership gives a decent boost still only worth 1% or so of gdp I believe. It may be more but less than ones thinks. a gooddealwitht the usa will add maybe 0.2% to gdp. Not to besniffes at but nothing to get excited about either. Most of us wont notice. Trade with the rest of world is even less significant. Trade deals already exist with many coj tries through the eu so bilateral deals will be merely replacing existing deals but perhaps not on the same terms perhaps not as favourable for the u.k

If the point of leaving the eu is trade deals then the public are going to be disappointed at how little difference they make to public.

Looking at your point from the other angle, people may be pleasantly surprised at how little negative effect leaving the EU has on them. Contrary to the sort of scenarios put forward in here.

The pleasantness of their surprise would be inversely proportionate to their understanding of compound growth

Given the percentages and timescales they are unlikely to notice. That's before you consider there is no alternative timeline to compare to (I.e. no way they can see what it would have been like had we not left) - hence no reference point.

I didn't think this (as suggested from page 1354) was about the future, but was about looking back from the future at alternative (modelled) paths that could have been taken with different decisions based on assumptions from the performance of other countries. In the absence of alternative universes, it would have some value in determining at that point whether it was a sound decision and help in making future decisions.

Not exactly how I was coming at it.

I am envisaging a point in the future (say 2030) where we are trying to work out the impact of Brexit. The actual position is clear enough but the only way to estimate the comparative situation (i.e. if we had never left) in 2030 is to go back to the periods just before Brexit, look at the trends up to that date and base the estimates on those.

As I explained above, the inherent difficulties of making long range forecasts in complex systems like the economy make any sort of accurate estimate of the above impossible. It would be at best a guess.

Longshot

Stevo_666 said:

I am envisaging a point in the future (say 2030) where we are trying to work out the impact of Brexit.

We can't. It's not possible. You were right the first few times.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

The weather forecasting example backs up my point very well - specifically that accurate longer term forecasts are not possible. Thanks for raising that one Brian.

You neatly overlook the climate science point... i.e., what is happening has been predicted.

And, of course, they still do do longer range forecasts, even if the results are variable. That's rather different from your "don't bother" suggestion.

Brian you are mixing up two different things and trying to equate the two.

While it can be predicted that large amounts of greenhouse gases continuously present in the atmosphere will tend to increase temperature, can you let me know what the weather will be like on, say, 20th November this year? You can't, can you.

And I never said dont bother, I just said that reasonably accurate long term forecasts of the type I mention are not possible.

Same applies for long term economic forecasts for the good reasons given above.

Nope, I'm not mixing up the two, though of course the two are related: the sort of weather patterns we're seeing now (e.g. Australia) are the result of, and have been predicted by the climate change scientists.

Somewhere in the middle is what the Met Office call long-range predictions, and that is very much part of their remit. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/user-guide

"As a result, the forecast is useful to assess likelihood and risk, but not for warning of definite events." The sort of thing you might do for an economy...

You definitely are - as mentioned above, one is an input variable into the other.

So, about the weather on 20th November? Any predictions? Same point applies for what our GDP might be in 10 years time if we had never left the EU. You simply don't know.

Both take past data to build models for predicting possibilities of future outcomes, and by matching predictions with actual outcomes, they refine their models. They don't not do it because it's inherently inaccurate and difficult. (Clue: that's not saying that climate science and weather forecasting is the same thing, though please do quote any bits where I have said or implied that.)

Climate science can help us understand why weather patterns over the longer term might diverge, and in what sorts of ways (more chaos, for a start). It can't tell us the forecast for 20 November - but it might help us know what sorts of winter weather patterns we'll be having in a several years' time.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

It can't tell us the forecast for 20 November - but it might help us know what sorts of winter weather patterns we'll be having in a several years' time.

Thanks for agreeing - and getting back to my original point (weather was just a more relatable comparison for someone who doesn't deal much in economics) - if you can't accurately forecast the weather in 10 months time, you can't accurately forecast our theoretical economic state if we never left in 10 years time.

Same principles apply as both are complex systems, as mentioned above.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

thecycleclinic said:

FTA agreements dont create alot of growth. The deal with the eu through membership gives a decent boost still only worth 1% or so of gdp I believe. It may be more but less than ones thinks. a gooddealwitht the usa will add maybe 0.2% to gdp. Not to besniffes at but nothing to get excited about either. Most of us wont notice. Trade with the rest of world is even less significant. Trade deals already exist with many coj tries through the eu so bilateral deals will be merely replacing existing deals but perhaps not on the same terms perhaps not as favourable for the u.k

If the point of leaving the eu is trade deals then the public are going to be disappointed at how little difference they make to public.

Looking at your point from the other angle, people may be pleasantly surprised at how little negative effect leaving the EU has on them. Contrary to the sort of scenarios put forward in here.

The pleasantness of their surprise would be inversely proportionate to their understanding of compound growth

Given the percentages and timescales they are unlikely to notice. That's before you consider there is no alternative timeline to compare to (I.e. no way they can see what it would have been like had we not left) - hence no reference point.

I didn't think this (as suggested from page 1354) was about the future, but was about looking back from the future at alternative (modelled) paths that could have been taken with different decisions based on assumptions from the performance of other countries. In the absence of alternative universes, it would have some value in determining at that point whether it was a sound decision and help in making future decisions.

Not exactly how I was coming at it.

I am envisaging a point in the future (say 2030) where we are trying to work out the impact of Brexit. The actual position is clear enough but the only way to estimate the comparative situation (i.e. if we had never left) in 2030 is to go back to the periods just before Brexit, look at the trends up to that date and base the estimates on those.

Or look at where we are relative to our peers. Which is what that article was doing. The G7 as a whole didn't have a particularly good 3 years but the UK did a bit worse. In your 2030 scenario we can carry out the same exercise. It won't necessarily give a precise answer, but you should be able to see whether we climbed or slipped down the various rankings.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

thecycleclinic said:

FTA agreements dont create alot of growth. The deal with the eu through membership gives a decent boost still only worth 1% or so of gdp I believe. It may be more but less than ones thinks. a gooddealwitht the usa will add maybe 0.2% to gdp. Not to besniffes at but nothing to get excited about either. Most of us wont notice. Trade with the rest of world is even less significant. Trade deals already exist with many coj tries through the eu so bilateral deals will be merely replacing existing deals but perhaps not on the same terms perhaps not as favourable for the u.k

If the point of leaving the eu is trade deals then the public are going to be disappointed at how little difference they make to public.

Looking at your point from the other angle, people may be pleasantly surprised at how little negative effect leaving the EU has on them. Contrary to the sort of scenarios put forward in here.

The pleasantness of their surprise would be inversely proportionate to their understanding of compound growth

Given the percentages and timescales they are unlikely to notice. That's before you consider there is no alternative timeline to compare to (I.e. no way they can see what it would have been like had we not left) - hence no reference point.

I didn't think this (as suggested from page 1354) was about the future, but was about looking back from the future at alternative (modelled) paths that could have been taken with different decisions based on assumptions from the performance of other countries. In the absence of alternative universes, it would have some value in determining at that point whether it was a sound decision and help in making future decisions.

Not exactly how I was coming at it.

I am envisaging a point in the future (say 2030) where we are trying to work out the impact of Brexit. The actual position is clear enough but the only way to estimate the comparative situation (i.e. if we had never left) in 2030 is to go back to the periods just before Brexit, look at the trends up to that date and base the estimates on those.

Or look at where we are relative to our peers. Which is what that article was doing. The G7 as a whole didn't have a particularly good 3 years but the UK did a bit worse. In your 2030 scenario we can carry out the same exercise. It won't necessarily give a precise answer, but you should be able to see whether we climbed or slipped down the various rankings.

I've already covered that point in reply to KG - can't be more than a couple of pages back on this thread.