snap general election?

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

They had this exact example in September 2007 and all bar a small minority gave an inaccurate response.

Northern Rock being the example of having a liquidity crisis in Sept 2007.

Their forecasts and responses were so far wrong that even by the end of Spring 2008 they did not foresee a recession. This was 2 months after Northern Rock had been nationalised.

TheBigBean

schlepcycling wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Which economists foretold the economic blip of 2008? The public remembers this.

Steve Keen

Interesting

Steve Keen (University of Western Sydney), receiving more than twice as many votes as his nearest rival, has been judged the economist who first and most cogently warned the world of the coming Global Financial Collapse.

Keen was in favour of the UK leaving the EU, stating that mainstream economists were over-certain and exaggerating as regards the likely effects following the country's withdrawal. Keen regards the open-borders free-movement policy of the EU as precipitate and unsustainable in the absence of a common fiscal policy, all the more so given that migrants impose burdens on public services in destination countries also experiencing austerity. He also states that the Euro is destined to fail, not least because of the way it penalises recession-hit countries unable to pursue expansive fiscal policy, and indeed considers the whole EU project as a failed one destined for collapse.

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

They had this exact example in September 2007 and all bar a small minority gave an inaccurate response.

Northern Rock being the example of having a liquidity crisis in Sept 2007.

Their forecasts and responses were so far wrong that even by the end of Spring 2008 they did not foresee a recession. This was 2 months after Northern Rock had been nationalised.

No. The credit crunch was after that.

Northern rock did not bring the system down.

You're not understanding what I am saying.

You are expecting the economists to be able to spot financial crises. That's not what economics is.

If you said "all banks will stop lending to each other" and "house prices will be falling" then they would let you know.

You're confusing finance with economics.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

They had this exact example in September 2007 and all bar a small minority gave an inaccurate response.

Northern Rock being the example of having a liquidity crisis in Sept 2007.

Their forecasts and responses were so far wrong that even by the end of Spring 2008 they did not foresee a recession. This was 2 months after Northern Rock had been nationalised.

link please

kingstongraham

Meanwhile, Nouriel Roubini (another who highlighted the looming credit and housing crisis) says "UK much better off inside EU".

I would say though, that diagnosing the credit and housing bubble and predicting a recession when it corrects, is quite a distance from predicting the financial crisis.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Which economists foretold the economic blip of 2008? The public remembers this.

In fairness to Economists, they're not mystic meg.

They have a set of tools and rules which, to varying degrees, model what happens.

A lot of it is based in sound evidence and logic.

They're not supposed to be experts on esoteric financial services.

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

Increasing numbers are saying that the largest systemic rick to the system is the proliferation of car financing deals. Of course if teh Govt clamps down on them then they will be castigated for getting their forecast wrong

ben@31

Surrey Commuter wrote:

not sure if your comment about the banking system is serious so will not add to it

Is any of my description of how the banking system and fiat currency works, from printing money out of thin air to loaning out more than the bank has, inaccurate?

Is their debt public yet any profit is private ?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Increasing numbers are saying that the largest systemic rick to the system is the proliferation of car financing deals. Of course if teh Govt clamps down on them then they will be castigated for getting their forecast wrong

Yes yes.

Also, falling consumer spending

with rising credit card debt (in the double digits!)

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I cannot predict with any certainty whether I will weigh more in a year's time than I do today.

I also cannot predict with any accuracy what my weight will be if I stop exercising and eat burger and chips for every meal.

I can predict with some degree of confidence that my weight will be higher if I take that course of action, than if I don't.

That's a bit simplistic as you can make very good predictions - by measuring the amount of calories you're intending to consume each meal and comparing that to your daily requirement.
What would make it harder to predict is if you stopped your planned excercise but instead, drove to your supermarket, parking as close to the entrance as possible, had to run from the moment you left the car to the moment you got back in - even if that meant running on the spot - to go and purchase your burger, bun and chips - buying whichever had the best offer on at that time.
You couldn't predict with any certainty, the amount of running you'd have to do each visit - you may not be able to park very close, the shop may be busy and you'd not be able to calculate the calorific intake of the burgers & chips because the varieties on offer would change every few days.
and even that doesn't compare with the variables required to predict our economic status in 10 years time.

No, I might break both my legs in a car accident so not be able to walk anywhere. I might lose my car in a gambling den and have to walk everywhere. In both these situations, eating burgers will make me larger than not eating burgers.

I don't know what I'll weigh, but I know that the effect of overeating will be positive to that outcome.

The bit in bold is exactly the point. You cannot predict what the economy will do over the next 10 years - but you can be pretty sure that leaving the EU will mean it is smaller than it would be if we hadn't left.

Whoooosh - the point has left you completely!

Exactly the point is that you have no idea what the UK economy will do once we leave the EU - how come you can have no idea - because you have no idea what trade deals will be in place with the EU once we leave - and once "free" of the EU, you have no idea what other deals with countries outside the EU will be on the table.
You have no idea of what the UK government will do to encourage businesses to come here.

It's a fair guess that the UK economy will be smaller - I'll give you that - but you can't predict that with any certainty.
the real question is where we would've been had we stayed in the EU ... there's the potential that we could've ended up propping up the Euro as more countries go the way of Greece ... or perhaps we'd need propping up ourselves as Germany slowly took over the EU ...

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

They had this exact example in September 2007 and all bar a small minority gave an inaccurate response.

Northern Rock being the example of having a liquidity crisis in Sept 2007.

Their forecasts and responses were so far wrong that even by the end of Spring 2008 they did not foresee a recession. This was 2 months after Northern Rock had been nationalised.

link please

Sept 2007 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock

Spring 2008 Forecasts - https://www.ft.com/content/14e323ee-e602-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e3

The record of failure remains impressive. There were 77 countries under consideration, and 49 of them were in recession in 2009. Economists – as reflected in the averages published in a report called Consensus Forecasts – had not called a single one of these recessions by April 2008.

kingstongraham

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I cannot predict with any certainty whether I will weigh more in a year's time than I do today.

I also cannot predict with any accuracy what my weight will be if I stop exercising and eat burger and chips for every meal.

I can predict with some degree of confidence that my weight will be higher if I take that course of action, than if I don't.

That's a bit simplistic as you can make very good predictions - by measuring the amount of calories you're intending to consume each meal and comparing that to your daily requirement.
What would make it harder to predict is if you stopped your planned excercise but instead, drove to your supermarket, parking as close to the entrance as possible, had to run from the moment you left the car to the moment you got back in - even if that meant running on the spot - to go and purchase your burger, bun and chips - buying whichever had the best offer on at that time.
You couldn't predict with any certainty, the amount of running you'd have to do each visit - you may not be able to park very close, the shop may be busy and you'd not be able to calculate the calorific intake of the burgers & chips because the varieties on offer would change every few days.
and even that doesn't compare with the variables required to predict our economic status in 10 years time.

No, I might break both my legs in a car accident so not be able to walk anywhere. I might lose my car in a gambling den and have to walk everywhere. In both these situations, eating burgers will make me larger than not eating burgers.

I don't know what I'll weigh, but I know that the effect of overeating will be positive to that outcome.

The bit in bold is exactly the point. You cannot predict what the economy will do over the next 10 years - but you can be pretty sure that leaving the EU will mean it is smaller than it would be if we hadn't left.

Whoooosh - the point has left you completely!

Exactly the point is that you have no idea what the UK economy will do once we leave the EU - how come you can have no idea - because you have no idea what trade deals will be in place with the EU once we leave - and once "free" of the EU, you have no idea what other deals with countries outside the EU will be on the table.
You have no idea of what the UK government will do to encourage businesses to come here.

It's a fair guess that the UK economy will be smaller - I'll give you that - but you can't predict that with any certainty.
the real question is where we would've been had we stayed in the EU ... there's the potential that we could've ended up propping up the Euro as more countries go the way of Greece ... or perhaps we'd need propping up ourselves as Germany slowly took over the EU ...

OK, we both think the other one is missing the point. If you don't think that it's almost certain there will be at least a temporary negative impact of leaving, then fair enough - I'm not missing your point, just disagreeing.

10 years isn't all that long. If you'd said 30 years, I would have no confidence in making the same assertion.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Which economists foretold the economic blip of 2008? The public remembers this.

In fairness to Economists, they're not mystic meg.

They have a set of tools and rules which, to varying degrees, model what happens.

A lot of it is based in sound evidence and logic.

They're not supposed to be experts on esoteric financial services.

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

I think your assertion is that it would be very hard for economists to predict that a specific country would have a bad year due to a parasite affecting their main cash crop. That's reasonable, although I would expect the economist to at least warn of the exposure to the cash crop.

Where I disagree with you though is that there is a significant overlap between finance and economics; hence why the Bank of England employs lots of economists. Therefore, on this issue I think they are more culpable.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you asked an Economist what would happen if there was a massive credit crunch and liquidity crisis in the financial system, relating to bad mortgage lending, I bet they'd have given you a fairly accurate response.

They had this exact example in September 2007 and all bar a small minority gave an inaccurate response.

Northern Rock being the example of having a liquidity crisis in Sept 2007.

Their forecasts and responses were so far wrong that even by the end of Spring 2008 they did not foresee a recession. This was 2 months after Northern Rock had been nationalised.

link please

Sept 2007 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock

Spring 2008 Forecasts - https://www.ft.com/content/14e323ee-e602-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e3

The record of failure remains impressive. There were 77 countries under consideration, and 49 of them were in recession in 2009. Economists – as reflected in the averages published in a report called Consensus Forecasts – had not called a single one of these recessions by April 2008.

Interesting FT article but no real depth to it. I will read up on the subject.

surrey_commuter

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I cannot predict with any certainty whether I will weigh more in a year's time than I do today.

I also cannot predict with any accuracy what my weight will be if I stop exercising and eat burger and chips for every meal.

I can predict with some degree of confidence that my weight will be higher if I take that course of action, than if I don't.

That's a bit simplistic as you can make very good predictions - by measuring the amount of calories you're intending to consume each meal and comparing that to your daily requirement.
What would make it harder to predict is if you stopped your planned excercise but instead, drove to your supermarket, parking as close to the entrance as possible, had to run from the moment you left the car to the moment you got back in - even if that meant running on the spot - to go and purchase your burger, bun and chips - buying whichever had the best offer on at that time.
You couldn't predict with any certainty, the amount of running you'd have to do each visit - you may not be able to park very close, the shop may be busy and you'd not be able to calculate the calorific intake of the burgers & chips because the varieties on offer would change every few days.
and even that doesn't compare with the variables required to predict our economic status in 10 years time.

No, I might break both my legs in a car accident so not be able to walk anywhere. I might lose my car in a gambling den and have to walk everywhere. In both these situations, eating burgers will make me larger than not eating burgers.

I don't know what I'll weigh, but I know that the effect of overeating will be positive to that outcome.

The bit in bold is exactly the point. You cannot predict what the economy will do over the next 10 years - but you can be pretty sure that leaving the EU will mean it is smaller than it would be if we hadn't left.

Whoooosh - the point has left you completely!

Exactly the point is that you have no idea what the UK economy will do once we leave the EU - how come you can have no idea - because you have no idea what trade deals will be in place with the EU once we leave - and once "free" of the EU, you have no idea what other deals with countries outside the EU will be on the table.
You have no idea of what the UK government will do to encourage businesses to come here.

It's a fair guess that the UK economy will be smaller - I'll give you that - but you can't predict that with any certainty.
the real question is where we would've been had we stayed in the EU ... there's the potential that we could've ended up propping up the Euro as more countries go the way of Greece ... or perhaps we'd need propping up ourselves as Germany slowly took over the EU ...

But it will take several years to conclude those deals and several more for British companies to become effective at exploiting them.

The EU and EU trade deals Acct for 61% of our exports.

FocusZing

TheBigBean wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Which economists foretold the economic blip of 2008? The public remembers this.

Steve Keen

Interesting

Steve Keen (University of Western Sydney), receiving more than twice as many votes as his nearest rival, has been judged the economist who first and most cogently warned the world of the coming Global Financial Collapse.

Keen was in favour of the UK leaving the EU, stating that mainstream economists were over-certain and exaggerating as regards the likely effects following the country's withdrawal. Keen regards the open-borders free-movement policy of the EU as precipitate and unsustainable in the absence of a common fiscal policy, all the more so given that migrants impose burdens on public services in destination countries also experiencing austerity. He also states that the Euro is destined to fail, not least because of the way it penalises recession-hit countries unable to pursue expansive fiscal policy, and indeed considers the whole EU project as a failed one destined for collapse.

I remember Steve Keen from the Max Kaiser report. Similar to Kaiser he predicts hell of a lot of things (more a financial depression at the time) some have to come true.

rick_chasey

He's a permabear isn't he?

FocusZing

That's the guy, sh1ts in the woods.

bompington

Isn't there some quote about economists successfully predicting 9 out of the last 5 recessions?

surrey_commuter

bompington wrote:

Isn't there some quote about economists successfully predicting 9 out of the last 5 recessions?

it is usually a self-deprecating joke upon being congratulated on predicting a house price fall etc the recipient of teh praise retorts that yes he predicted 9 of the last 5 house price slumps.

wallace_and_gromit

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bompington wrote:

Isn't there some quote about economists successfully predicting 9 out of the last 5 recessions?

it is usually a self-deprecating joke upon being congratulated on predicting a house price fall etc the recipient of teh praise retorts that yes he predicted 9 of the last 5 house price slumps.

My favourites re economists are:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

- If you lay all the economists in the world end-to-end you still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Though my background is in a profession in which its members are widely held to use their personality as contraception, so I should really keep quiet!

kingstongraham

Also, predicting the recession and collapse in US house prices is not quite the same as predicting the financial crisis.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

He's a permabear isn't he?

Who is bullish about Brexit?

TheBigBean

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He's a permabear isn't he?

Who is bullish about Brexit?

permabear or contrarian?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

seems they may be good at forecasting some things
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/st ... 84236.html

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

Are you calling me a troll?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

Are you calling me a troll?

Tongue in cheek, but yeah.

What's wrong with historians, in this context?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

Are you calling me a troll?

Tongue in cheek, but yeah.

What's wrong with historians, in this context?

Well, that's a first for me.

I think you've missed the point. There's nothing wrong with historians. It's an important job and economists make excellent historians (with regard to economics). I'm less convinced in the ability of economists to forecast the future.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

- Economists can't even reliably predict the past.

That's harsh. I think of them as good historians.

Trolly trollerson.

Are you calling me a troll?

Tongue in cheek, but yeah.

What's wrong with historians, in this context?

Well, that's a first for me.

I think you've missed the point. There's nothing wrong with historians. It's an important job and economists make excellent historians (with regard to economics). I'm less convinced in the ability of economists to forecast the future.

what about the ability to forecast the impact of specific events and actions?

for instance forecasting the size of the economy in 5 years time or the oil price has (some would say) too many variables to be valid.

However would you listen if they forecast the impact of a 10% increase in the oil price or reducing immigration to sub-100,000?