[Link]

Have a read of this.

TBH I've never trusted economists because only about 3 or 4 of them predicted the 2008 crash and they were laughed at by the rest of the economist community (I hate that word but can't think of a collective noun for economist)

Edit: [Link]
Seems a bulls*** of economists is the favourite term.

Edited by nickgusset (13 Jun 2016 12.03am)

Same applies to you, gusset. Congratulations for grasping the nature of financial forecasting. In particular you've discovered what a blunt tool macroeconomic predictions are (and hence why the treasury nor IMF can't even predict our growth for the next quarter) - well done!

It's a shame you so readily (yet so conveniently) disregard those with whom you do not agree (you are fooling no-one on here with your "agonised indecision". The models he uses are exactly the same as those the treasury use. If his work is wrong, and flawed as you suggest, so by extension must be the findings from the treasury?

But yes, well done! You found a blog site that "discredits" him (and, by extension EVERY economist if you go and read the amazon page of his book).

We should probably tell the clients he lists as having worked for: the European Commission, the UK Government, various regulators and large firms. I hope he no longer frequently appears on Newsnight, the Today Programme, Sky News, CNBC and Bloomberg after being thoroughly discredited. He'll need to give back his PhD in macroeconomics and come clean to the BBC that they shouldn't have attributed the "essential theory" behind the Coalition's initial deficit reduction strategy to him.

You get the idea. I've provided you with an example that builds (to me) extremely conservative and rational assumptions into the same models used by the treasury (whilst critiquing their more biased assumptions) and cannot therefore create the Brexitpocalyse as predicted. As someone who works along very similar principles, but in a different profession, this report passes the "smell test".

His conclusion is that the outcome is between 1% loss and 2% gain in GDP. The statistical scatter in GDP growth rates since 1970 is around 1-2%. My conclusion: with more sensible assumptions, Brexit forecasts are economically neutral, with any variation in growth rate from the baseline entirely within the statistical noise.

Firstly, I will say that I have still not made my decision. Are you saying I am lying? Really. what would that gain me? What would be the point of it?

2nd, Please show a bit of respect, my name is Nick not Gusset. Do you call everyone by their last name? I am not disrespectful to you or others, perhaps some common courtesy on your part would give me and others a better impression of you.

3rd. I generally do not trust economists. We would not be in the s*** state we are if they actually could do their job. As I've said only a handful of economists saw the 2008 crash coming and they were laughed at. If they said well actually the chances of this are... rather than giving opinions as facts - yes I understand it is very very difficult to predict what will happen. Why are we listening to the same people who didn't see the crash coming? They were s*** at their job, yet we are still expected to believe them.

4th. When have treasury forecasts ever been accurate. If they were, then why does Osborne have to keep telling us that the previous forecasts are out of kilter with what actually happened.
5th You attribute Liloco to providing the coalitions original deficit strategy. How accurate was that?

I'll repeat that I know it's an extremely difficult thing to accurately make predictions, so much so that they are rarely right. Why should I believe either side of the arguments predictions by economists when they are generally not that good?

Could you not simply have said "There are ifs and buts because its's an economic projection" and left all the patronising insults out?

When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.

Here it is.

Attachment: Screenshot_20160613-101323.png (185.35Kb)

I'm not sold on the idea that 'self determination' is presented even reasonably. The UK self determination is pretty much solid, with the EU capacity to affect that being somewhat limited to trade legislation that's largely pro-free market (i.e. the kind of legislation that the last 40 years of UK government have pushed).

Personally, I object to a lot of the economic and corporate preference in the EU legislation, but its exactly the kind of s**t that every UK government since 1980, including Labour, have pursued.

People seem to cite we cannot nationalise our train networks, as cause, as if any UK government would actually do that (Labour would lack sufficient support within its own party to push it through, and no conservatives would support it).

People seem to think that pure self determination is in itself a good thing, it isn't, the value of self determination, is best served by having an independent third party to arbitrate between the rights of individuals and the authority of the state.

For self determination to work, someone has to arbitrate. Traditionally that's better served by out outside entity, than one with involvement or interest in the final decision.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

This is not all about how we stand today but how we will stand tomorrow.
Will being in the EU serve us better than being out of it in the long term.
In the end, it is a prediction.
I've concluded that being a "state" of Europe will not serve my kids and their kids well. It might serve a whole lot of other people (mostly not British) but not the one's who matter to me.
We all have to look into the near future(the 150 years that might affect the ones we care about) and make our own judgment.
Those without a vested interested in the future can come up with any ideological mumbo jumbo the choose to justify their position and vote accordingly.

Attachment: 1420_big.jpg (309.17Kb)

Interestingly, this is also why I'm voting out, not because I necessarily think the UK will be better off in my lifetime, but so as to at least obtain the capacity to make those changes that are necessary to the UK national interest. The EU should exist to facilitate the interests of member states, not to dictate corporate agendas.

I doubt that any government is going to implement the reasons why I want to separate the UK from the EU, but it would at least retain that capacity for future governments who may be more socially orientated.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Because that's what's been happening when you vote for governments that reduce spending. They cut funding to the kind of things that people don't pay too much attention to, like homelessness, child services, shelters etc.

Where as obligations to refugees, are monitored and reported to the EU and UN. Asylum cases aren't so much fast tracked, as assured, and the provision of welfare benefit has to occur, because the UK prevents Asylum Applicants from working until such time as they're granted temporary or permanent leave to remain.

As such, they don't fall into the numerous bureaucratic voids that exist in the welfare system specifically to prevent people being able to claim benefits.

Public services account for spending cuts, by cutting funding that's either political unpopular (drug rehab) or relatively obfuscated as to be acceptable (womens refuge shelters or veterens). In the latter, typically the black hole exists in an argument as to 'who is responsible' - The MOD or the NHS / Dept of Welfare etc.

An irony of this, is that people who are homeless cannot claim benefits, including housing benefits, for several months after they have a place to live, which of course prevents them getting a place to live (even if you are homeless because you're fleeing domestic violence, or have problems relating to military experiences) - The system doesn't care, you're 'homeless by choice' and as such, don't count as homeless.

So its not so much that they're fast tracked, but they're represented in the statistics and data, and the UK is accountable for them to the UN and EU monitoring bodies.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]