This is interesting. I linked you to an FT article which gave all the quotes, and even cut a bit out for you to save you chasing down the article. I've given you the evidence - why are you so desperate to pretend it doesn't exist?
Curious.
Or the less curious explanation is that I missed your reply where you linked to the article. But it's behind a paywall anyway and the bit you quoted doesn't actually provide what Carney said about what would happen and when.
The reason I ask is that every quote I have seen from Carney talked about what would happen post-Brexit and we haven't Brexited yet. Now he might well have made predictions about what would happen immediately after the vote but in that case I'd like to see exactly what he said and not what the press say he said or what you say he said because these things are often not the same.
I have outlined my argument quite clearly. You are going to considerable lengths not to understand it. It really isn't terribly difficult to follow.
It's not difficult to follow, it's difficult to extract a thread of logic from them.
People asked for examples of failed expert predictions.
I provided an expert prediction, a direct claim from Carney with a credible reference (the FT) of him saying it.
I observed this didn't appear to be the case from anecdotal evidence. However, I've since got more evidence - a list of mortgage rate cuts from lenders (graphic courtesy of Szu Ping Chan)
[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Crwh2jxW8AI6Ef5.jpg:large[/qimg]
I wasn't disputing that the bank dropped the base rate or that mortgage rates have dropped as a result.
So we now have clear and unambiguous evidence of a project fear "expert" prediction which was utterly wrong. This isn't an isolated example, but if remainers are in denial over this one clear and well evidenced example then I don't see much point in continuing discussion. You are immune to actual evidence.
If it's not an isolated incident then you should be able to provide say ... 4? ... examples?
And I've yet to see this clear unambiguous evidence so I'll hold off on agreeing with you until I do.
You really don't understand the concept of models, do you? Yes of course things can have long lasting effect. But those effects are not meaningfully predictable by a model. This is not controversial amongst the scientific / mathematical community.
It seems its you who doesn't understand the concept of models. I used to build them for a living so I think I have some understanding.
Perhaps you are getting confused between the purpose of a scientific/mathematical model and a financial/economic model. They are not really the same. Prediction is not the main goal of those kind of models if by prediction you mean comparing say the interest rate in Dec 2025 with the forecast and expecting to be spot on.
No, this is a simple error on your part. This only applies to linear systems, where effects can be separated in the way you describe. It does not apply to non-linear systems like the economy.
No, it doesn't. Effects will be there regardless of whether they can be separated or isolated or not.
To give a very simple illustration. If I quit my job then I can predict that in 2 years time my income from that job will be $0. And that, in the absence of other factors, my household income will be much lower than it would be if I didn't make that decision.
That 'prediction' is very reliable beyond 6 months.
Of course there are other factors at play that will influence my income over the coming years - will I apply for a new job, how the market, what skills do i have, what will the economy do generally etc etc.
All of these can be examined in a number of scenarios under different assumptions and the model will churn out the sausage from the machine. There will be some things not included in the model.
Now if you look at my income in 2018 and I have a $1m a year job as the CEO of Economic Modelling Inc it doesn't make my original prediction wrong or useless.
Arguing over the results of a model is a pointless exercise. The only thing worth arguing about are the assumptions that go into it. And anyone who builds a model knows it's wrong from the start. It's not supposed to be right. It's supposed to inform decision making, be indicative of impacts and likely sensitivities etc.
Of course, the further from the model builder the information gets the less this is understood or communicated effectively and the more people just focus on the prediction as the 'answer'
Ah, I've got it! The argument of bizarre absolute guy:
Bizarre Absolute Guy
Seriously, is this supposed to be a sceptics forum? Three to six month ahead predictions are actually quite useful, for example, when objectively attempting to manage inflation through monetary policy. But not according to bizarre absolute guy! Wow.
Sorry but nobody makes economic decisions on a 3-6 month timeframe of impact assessment. It probably takes 3-6 months from building the model to actually implementing the decision and the effects are usually supposed to be long term.
Incidentally it's you who is taking the ridiculously absolutist position that if you can't predict the economy in a years team precisely then all models are useless. And therefore we should vote for Farage and Bojo because something something, presumably?
What information did you have
prior to the vote to show that Carney was incorrect and should be ignored? Otherwise you are just arguing from hindsight.
