Economist overwhelmingly reject Brexit. So what?

OP

Vince Cable predicted it and he says we should stay.

(That's assuming your logic is correct)

Personally I think economists who have got one or reprints wrongs are still more credible to talk on economic policy than some bloke down a pub.

Someone who is an academic in a supposedly social science should know better than to make predictions/statements based off **** all evidence compared to some bloke down the pub. Economists are behaving like a bloke down the pub... That's the problem. So I will treat them accordingly. They don't know but they pretend or delude themselves that they do.

It is like asking a historian to predict the future.

Listen to your hero :tongue:

[video="youtube;RgMQv2M1NGk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMQv2M1NGk[/video]

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

ChaoticButterfly

OP

20

Original post by Withengar

Yes, let's ignore the advice and warnings of actual, trained professionals and listen to the voices of isolationist, xenophobic, prejudiced right-wing fearmongerers. I don't see how could that possibly go wrong or backfire in any way.

These people said we should have joined the euro :sigh:

Reply 22

highergeogg67

4

Original post by Withengar

Yes, let's ignore the advice and warnings of actual, trained professionals and listen to the voices of isolationist, xenophobic, prejudiced right-wing fearmongerers. I don't see how could that possibly go wrong or backfire in any way.

Honestly cannot stand when people say that all of those who want to leave the EU are racist, especially since most of the people saying that are wingeing middle class white kids who have never expirenced racism in their lives. I want to leave the EU and I am a third generation immigrant from Kazakhstan, and I truly appreciate everything that this amazing country has offered me. And for some of the native British people to reject sovereignty in some strange quest to appease people of other races boggles my mind.

I can't be bothered to write out all the reasons that we should leave the EU for what would probably be the 20th time, so I'll just briefly summarise:
70% of our laws made by the UNELECTED European Commission, lead by an unelected president, anywhere else this would be called a dictatorship, the U.K.'s MEP's voted against almost every single decision made last year, we are 100% controlled by Germany (remind you of anything?), open door to half a billion people, etc, etc

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 23

SaucissonSecCy

16

These economists are not objective. We all know how much funding and political influence can effect assessments that are supposedly 'independent'. I mean, the inquiry into David Kelly was independent, and into Iraq will be. they have, and wil find in favour of the government. I think Falconer did one and he is Blair's best mate.

Joseph Stiglitz does support Brxit and he's a nobel prize winner.

Reply 24

Davij038

13

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

These people said we should have joined the euro :sigh:

There was a mix of people for and against. Gordon brown and ed balls argued against the euro but they are strongly against us leaving the euro.

Reply 25

Davij038

13

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Someone who is an academic in a supposedly social science should know better than to make predictions/statements based off **** all evidence compared to some bloke down the pub. Economists are behaving like a bloke down the pub... That's the problem. So I will treat them accordingly. They don't know but they pretend or delude themselves that they do.

It is like asking a historian to predict the future.

Listen to your hero :tongue:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-britain-alone-scenario-how-economists-for-brexit-defy-the-laws-of-gravity/

I think this answers your points. I really like Yanis but I don't agree with everything he says.

Reply 26

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

These are the same people that didn't see 2008 coming. May as well listen to a bunch of astrologers.

They have never predicted anything.

Actually pretty much everyone in The City predicted it. I will however say that most of the people trying to suggest that anybody who isn't pro-EU is a big dumb dumb were the same people who thought that joining the single currency would be a good idea, even though all common sense suggested it wouldn't.

Sometimes you've got to concede that there are intelligent points to be made for both sides of a debate but you've also sometimes got to remember that common sense has a place over academics and journos and the like who've never had a real job in their lives and have lived in a bubble the entire time.

Reply 27

username1204031

14

Original post by nulli tertius

Isaac Newton thought the Philosopher's Stone turned base metal into gold.

Does that mean there is no such thing as gravity?

If it were convenient for the Leave campaign to claim that physicists are all wrong and physics is just guess work, you're damn right they'd tell us there's no such thing as gravity.

Reply 28

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Withengar

Yes, let's ignore the advice and warnings of actual, trained professionals and listen to the voices of isolationist, xenophobic, prejudiced right-wing fearmongerers. I don't see how could that possibly go wrong or backfire in any way.

So we shouldn't listen to the remain camp, we should listen to the remain camp? Make your mind up, do we listen or not?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

Withengar

18

Original post by Jammy Duel

So we shouldn't listen to the remain camp, we should listen to the remain camp? Make your mind up, do we listen or not?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're not getting the point. This isn't political. Economics are not and don't need to be democratic. If skilled, professional experts say we're better off economically, we are. It's not up to the uneducated majority to decide upon economic matters.

Reply 30

username1204031

14

Original post by Jammy Duel

So we shouldn't listen to the remain camp, we should listen to the remain camp? Make your mind up, do we listen or not?

When discussing economics, we should listen to economists. The economists just happen to be presenting an abundance of evidence that says we should remain. People don't seem to understand that the research has nothing to do with politics. All the economists in the world aren't conspiring and falsifying research to spite you. They're doing their research and presenting their conclusions. Why do some people think that it's in any way okay to dismiss empirical evidence because it doesn't back their political agenda?

Reply 31

MagicNMedicine

20

There's a lot of nonsense spouted about this "economists didn't see X coming".

Economists aren't fortune tellers that see in to the future, they will explain the potential opportunities and risks of a course of action. When they are asked to make predictions all they can really do is using existing known information to try and extrapolate forward to a future prediction. Kind of like this time last year when people made predictions about how the 2015/16 Premier League would pan out they would use historic information such as Chelsea are dominant, Mourinho is a born winner, Ranieri has been sacked at his last few jobs after failing and Leicester only stayed up thanks to an unlikely run at the end of last season, ie Chelsea will probably win the league and Leicester have a fair chance of relegation.

The problem is often lobbyists/politicians for one course of action like to try and get credibility for their arguments by saying X economist agrees with me, so my views have extra validity. This then skews what people think.

On the Euro, the vast majority of economists thought this would be a bad idea. There's a long standing consensus about shared currency zones that basically lays out four conditions which suggest success (of which the Eurozone only satisfied one) and the general consensus position amongst economists was that the Euro would increase trade/growth in good economic times but left them more exposed to economic shocks - the single currency gives fewer options to deal with it so when bad times hit the Eurozone members would be hit harder. This was a common theme in all the economic literature of the time. Of course promoters of the Euro would say "economists say that joining the Euro will increase trade/growth by X" without acknowledging the other side of it.

So it is complete bull that economists thought a single currency would be a good idea....

On the financial crisis, the story gets more nuanced. One group of economists took the view that 'financial innovations' were a good thing and creating growth, another group were warning that this was increasing the risk in the system. The problem is, if you were in the second group, you could forget getting a job in an investment bank, or as a government advisor or even an academic position in one of the "elite" universities. So as Paul Krugman points out sometimes, its amazing how an economist's viewpoint can change when his potential salary is much higher from taking a particular position!

Now it is fair to say that those in the "too much risk in the system" camp did not see the time and scale of the problem coming, but this was also because the financial services system had basically disguised the risk so nobody really knew. They were packaging up complicated assets that were getting rated AAA safe by credit rating agencies, when they were basically junk assets, and once the defaults started coming in everyone realised very quickly the scale of the scam and so the crash happened.

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Withengar

You're not getting the point. This isn't political. Economics are not and don't need to be democratic. If skilled, professional experts say we're better off economically, we are. It's not up to the uneducated majority to decide upon economic matters.

Original post by JordanL_

When discussing economics, we should listen to economists. The economists just happen to be presenting an abundance of evidence that says we should remain. People don't seem to understand that the research has nothing to do with politics. All the economists in the world aren't conspiring and falsifying research to spite you. They're doing their research and presenting their conclusions. Why do some people think that it's in any way okay to dismiss empirical evidence because it doesn't back their political agenda?

One, you seem to have completely missed the point, unsurprising.

Two, the job of an economist is to make astrologers look good. The records of those being cited are awful, many of these people made the exact same argument about not joining the Euro, care to check the history books for that economic apocalypse? Funnily enough you won't find it. How about the apocalypse after leaving the ERM? Nope, the economy was growing faster with the growth increasing. How about the recovery of Greece after a very short recession in 2010? Well, they're down almost 30pc still and are in a worse state than the us in the great depression. How about the sunshine and rainbows in 2008? Oooo, no, major recession, including the global economy contracting about 2pc.

How about those treasury forecasts for the deficit? They didn't come out too well, and they still aren't coming out too well. Hell, it says that somehow in 2020 there will be a huge cut in the deficit into a surplus. I wonder if that's because George said that's what he wants the results to be or whether they genuinely believe it will happen?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

DorianGrayism

19

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

These are the same people that didn't see 2008 coming. May as well listen to a bunch of astrologers.

They have never predicted anything.

Talking nonsense.

Plenty of economists wrote about the systemic instability within the world economy, which still exists today.

Obviously, you pay no attention, so don't blame them.

Reply 34

DorianGrayism

19

Original post by SaucissonSecCy

Joseph Stiglitz does support Brxit and he's a nobel prize winner.

He also supported Scottish secession. SO he would be correct on that as well?

Reply 35

slaven

1

Is chuka an traditional British name? LOL

Reply 36

slaven

1

Original post by DorianGrayism

He also supported Scottish secession. SO he would be correct on that as well?

Yes, Scotland was seceding from the EU as well.

Reply 37

DorianGrayism

19

Original post by slaven

Yes, Scotland was seceding from the EU as well.

And the Scottish plan was to immediately reapply for membership.

Actually Salmond said they never planned to leave the EU but lying is what nationalists do.

Reply 38

slaven

1

Original post by DorianGrayism

And the Scottish plan was to immediately reapply for membership.

Actually Salmond said they never planned to leave the EU but lying is what nationalists do.

Well, Salmond would have to leave for a small time outside the EU. He was saying that Scotland could live from the oil and that it would not harm the Scottish economy if Scotland secedes.

Yes, he wanted to reapply, but not for economic reason but ideologicall once. And even if Scotland had reaply it would took Scotland 10 years to become a membership. There was this 35 chapters of negotiations as well that some members of the EU like Spain said immediately it would block Scottish efforts to join the EU.