I1L2T3 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Sigh. I really did try, but let's wind back your foot stomping skweaming demands and let you answer my original question first. What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? No you didn’t try. Only to wriggle out of admitting you got it wrong perhaps. What makes Steve Baker want to believe them? He simultaneously demolished the forecasts of reduced GDP growth while lauding the fact that the forecasts indicated that the economy would still glow, albeit much more slowly. Seems he’s happy to cherry pick the bits he likes, even from your duff forecasting department. Brexiters are all over the shop. Because of their own report. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 No you didn’t try. Only to wriggle out of admitting you got it wrong perhaps. What makes Steve Baker want to believe them? He simultaneously demolished the forecasts of reduced GDP growth while lauding the fact that the forecasts indicated that the economy would still glow, albeit much more slowly. Seems he’s happy to cherry pick the bits he likes, even from your duff forecasting department. Brexiters are all over the shop. Because of their own report. What a joke. As I said before, just read past the very first line, it's all there, on line 2 as it happens. I'll talk to you like the grown up I think you are. The DEEU doesn't have the capability to produce such a report internally, just like the Treasury itself relied on the LSE when it made its own woefully hapless Brexit predictions. I can't think of a single government report that has credibly predicted a macro economic outlook. Gordon Brown's Treasury and cross departmental backed prediction We will not return to the old boom and bust in 2007 should keep reminding you of that if you fancy getting carried away with yourself over Brexit predictions. You take these reports and statements as interesting and for micro guidance in small areas, but you need to be a special kind of mug to head for the conclusions page and use it as a prediction. I've not studied it and I expect that you haven't either. But of the three outcomes I've seen the very worst is a 0.5% (or was it 0.8%) reduction in growth across the year. I assume that you have better maths skills than most people commenting here and I don't need to explain how that's hardly even a number. It's even less of a number since the economy grew by over 1% instead of falling by over 1% immediately after the referendum. As if any more reality was needed in this mix of sorry misunderstandings and overexcitement, the three scenarios in the report were scenarios that aren't being proposed anyway. There's only one useful lesson here, but too many people still aren't learning that macro economic forecasting is for mugs. Stockholm Syndrome writ large. Now back to the original question you didn't answer. Let's have YOUR opinion, not anyone else's. What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 As I said before, just read past the very first line, it's all there, on line 2 as it happens. Now back to the original question you didn't answer. Let's have YOUR opinion, not anyone else's. What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Line 2: if it didn’t have the capability why did it commission departments it didn’t trust. That’s where it falls apart for you. I already pointed that out. If you drop the prurient nonsense about Stockholm syndrome I might take you more seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Line 2: if it didn’t have the capability why did it commission departments it didn’t trust. That’s where it falls apart for you. I already pointed that out. If you drop the prurient nonsense about Stockholm syndrome I might take you more seriously Who says that they didn't trust them? I didn't say that. I said that macro predictions of the type in the report are as good as universally wrong. I gave the example that all those departments and economists missed the worlds biggest financial disaster. Less than a year before the British Chancellor was predicting stability numbers into the next decade. So... What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Who says that they didn't trust them? I didn't say that. Your original claim that the report was by the same department as the one prior to the referendum is incorrect. Muddying the waters to try to save face you never had is pointless. I said that macro predictions of the type in the report are as good as universally wrong. So then surely there are a range of reports/analyses? Predictions of both good and bad. If they're as good as universally wrong, where are the ones showing how great we're going to have it? Where are they? I gave the example that all those departments and economists missed the worlds biggest financial disaster. Less than a year before the British Chancellor was predicting stability numbers into the next decade. Waffle, to avoid admitting your original claim was incorrect. What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? The report was produced by the DxEU, packed to the hilt with Brexiters. This can't be dismissed as "Project Fear". Good effort, poorly executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Your original claim that the report was by the same department as the one prior to the referendum is incorrect. You do realise that all departments refer to the Treasury on finance don't you? Like they would refer to DoE on farming and environmental impact. The HCA on housing and local matters. Academics for academic research and opinion. Or the pick your own department / body / quango for their speciality. It's hard to imagine that anyone could be so dim witted to think that every department had its own parallel units, and didn't just coordinate, collate and publish such reports, but apparently some people really are that dim. But what makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) You do realise that all departments refer to the Treasury on finance don't you? Yawn, keep on spinning. It's hard to imagine that anyone could be so dim witted to think that every department had its own parallel units, and didn't just coordinate, collate and publish such reports, but apparently some people really are that dim. Ahh, we're back to that. Keep on digging.... Are we getting "Adults in the room" next? When are you going to start behaving like one? But what makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Where are all those "mostly wrong" analyses showing how great it's going to be on these sunny Brexit uplands? Edited January 31, 2018 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Yep. apparently there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Who says that they didn't trust them? I didn't say that. I said that macro predictions of the type in the report are as good as universally wrong. I gave the example that all those departments and economists missed the worlds biggest financial disaster. Less than a year before the British Chancellor was predicting stability numbers into the next decade. So... What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? Because similar forecasts are being generated across the board from many organisations, not just the U.K. government. The IMF, OECD etc... And because the leaver response is always to dismiss them without grounds, and often by utilising abusive or flippant arguments - like yours ---------- Post added 31-01-2018 at 11:39 ---------- Yawn, keep on spinning. Ahh, we're back to that. Keep on digging.... Are we getting "Adults in the room" next? When are you going to start behaving like one? Where are all those "mostly wrong" analyses showing how great it's going to be on these sunny Brexit uplands? Blimey, just keep digging. This is comical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Because similar forecasts are being generated across the board from many organisations, not just the U.K. government. The IMF, OECD etc... Thanks for the reply. Here are the pre-referendum statements from the IMF and OECD. We both know that they are pro EU biased organisations but they are your choice of expertise. IMF. Wrong. Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, also backed warnings from the Bank of England governor Mark Carney that Britain could fall into recession following a Brexit vote. Lagarde, who was in London on Friday to present the fund’s annual health check on the UK economy, said it was possible the economy would shrink in two consecutive quarters, which is the definition of a recession. “We have looked at all the scenarios. We have done our homework and we haven’t found anything positive to say about a Brexit vote,” she said. The IMF said a panic among investors would trigger shockwaves throughout the economy following a vote to leave, sending shares and property prices into downward spiral. OECD. Wrong. A UK exit from the EU would immediately hit confidence and raise uncertainty which would result in GDP being 3% lower by 2020, which equates to GBP 2200 per household. The OECD states that such costs are already piling up in a new study released today. The projected hit to living standards would amount in effect to a permanent “Brexit tax” on households, the OECD says. Presenting the analysis in a speech at the London School of Economics, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: “Leaving Europe would impose a Brexit tax on generations to come. Instead of funding public services, this tax would be a pure deadweight loss, with no economic benefit.” Oh look, there's the LSE economists cropping up yet again, but if even the IMF and OECD can't get it remotely right I might see why you are still reluctant to answer the original question after half a dozen attempts: What makes you want to believe them now apart from Stockholm Syndrome? When giving your responses please try not to always to dismiss them without grounds, and often by utilising abusive or flippant arguments - like yours Hasn't it started to dawn on you yet? You've been taken for a mug by vested interests. Maybe it's time you took back control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts