Merged Now What?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

 

[McHrozni]

What lies ?

The ones I cited, obviously.

So now you're saying Ireland, Italy, Portugal Greece and Spain are not struggling ?

Of course they're struggling. But if your lies were facts, they would've struggled when UK had problems with ERM. They're struggling about 20 years later, at least in some cases due to very obvious and very severe missteps that had nothing to do with EU. You explicitly mentioned Greece, which is struggling because of severely bad policy choices coupled with fraudulent accounting. Neither was caused by EU, yet it features prominently on your list. You were told this before, yet you still peddle it, and have the nerve to ask "what lies" are you peddling. Do you think we're all idiots or something?

No, the country is the 'actor'.

Yeah, in in Sid Meyers' Civilization that's actually true. The real world is a little bit different however - for example, if your postulate were true, all regions of all national governments would always have the same per capita GDP, which is so utterly false I can't describe it in under fifty words, some of which would be rather rude.

If your levels of understanding matters is this limited it's no wonder you support a whole set of silly things.

Every national economy has a common tax system, common interest rates, common inflation level.

Now you're getting just plain silly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Geographic_variation

This isn't true even in the UK, supposedly the country without such issues. EMU has common interest rates, whereas inflation is obviously different if you calculate it for different regions of any country or region - or else the same asset, product or service would always cost the same anywhere, which it does not.

Tied to another economy with a different tax system, different interest rates, different minimum wage system, different growth and a different inflation level ERM can't work.

ERM is a little bit more than "let's all have the same currency" that you seem to think it is. It involves harmonization of laws to the point where such differences are minimized.

Each 'actor' is a nation state with it's own laws, growth rates and inflation. It makes perfect sense for each nation state to have it's own currency.

Of course the system can work when each nation state has it's own currency. No one is arguing against that. You need to argue monetary unions don't work. Thus far you tried hard to prove national currencies can't work, then asserted it makes perfect sense that they work. Great job!

By the way, the difference between teh GDP of Western Isles and London is bigger than the difference between UK and Poland.

Cherry on the cake: you're calling me stupid.

EU Parliament is a scrutinising house, not a policy proposing house. They cannot put forward private members bills to propose policy the way MPs can.

So according to you the issue is that EU parliament doesn't have enough strength, and you consider this an argument against a political union?

There's no cabinet of elected MEPs to govern either.

There is no cabinet of elected ministers on a national level either.

EU Commissioners are appointed not elected, so what lie ?

EU Commissioners perform a function most reminiscent of ministers in a government.

Please provide me with a list of ministers elected in the UK for that post in the past 10 years. If you can't the issue is obviously not EU, but that you fundamentally disagree with the modern system of government, but only apply that standard to the EU, because reasons.

Like your position, most of your arguments are downright bizarre.

McHrozni

 

[Airfix]

You didn't cite lies, you told lies.

Was it deliberate or accidental that you missed the point about inflation ?

Whether you like it or not, all members of the UK cabinet are elected MPs.
The party with the most MPs forms a government. That's how UK democracy works.
Obviously as mentioned before the system could do with improvement (an elected upper house and proportional representation would be good improvements), but it's a damn sight better than the model used by the EU.

If you want an exhaustive list of elected MPs who became ministers (and sometimes ministers who lost their job following an election, Chris Pattern being a famous one from the 1990's), we'll be here till the cows come home.

 

[Lothian]

Whether you like it or not, all members of the UK cabinet are elected MPs.

Wrong now and wrong for every cabinet since 1902 if not earlier.

 

[McHrozni]

Was it deliberate or accidental that you missed the point about inflation ?

Interestingly, you completely ignored all points that I made, and only tried to comment on the one which you ... missed, apparently.

For your convenience, from my earlier post:
EMU has common interest rates, whereas inflation is obviously different if you calculate it for different regions of any country or region - or else the same asset, product or service would always cost the same anywhere, which it does not.

The most obvious case in this are hose prices, which are always reported based on the city or region. If the inflation was the same for all regions we wouldn't do that. The same dynamics are at play everywhere, but they are not as critical to the economy, so we lump them together under a single indicator.

You concede all other points, I take it? Problems with EMU, interest rates, different growth rates, laws ... you agree you were wrong on all of those counts, yes?

Whether you like it or not, all members of the UK cabinet are elected MPs.
The party with the most MPs forms a government. That's how UK democracy works.

Like it or not, that's also how the European parliament works. Supposedly one is good (but could use improvement) but the other is broken. Strange, that.

If you want an exhaustive list of elected MPs who became ministers (and sometimes ministers who lost their job following an election, Chris Pattern being a famous one from the 1990's), we'll be here till the cows come home.

No, I want a list of ministers who were elected to the position of that ministry by the electorate. That's the standard you use for European Parliament, so it's obviously something that needs to already exist in UK, right?

McHrozni

 

[Agatha]

This thread is running slowly and generating duplicate posts, so I have opened a continuation thread here.

Posted By: Agatha