• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

I dont pretend to be an expert, but in this context that doesnt seem quite so alarming:

It predicted a no-deal Brexit, leaving Britain trading with Europe on World Trade Organisation terms, would reduce growth by 8 per cent over 15 years.
Based on average GDP growth over the past 5 years, that would cut output from £2.62 trillion by 2033 to £2.36 trillion, Best for Britain calculated – a loss of £252.4bn.
 
i am no expert but £252 bn > £40bn - (Even present valuing the 252 over 15 years minimum is 139bn). We would be paying 100bn + in order to not pay 40bn.

All assuming that withholding the £40bn leads to a no-deal brexit.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I dont pretend to be an expert, but in this context that doesnt seem quite so alarming:

It predicted a no-deal Brexit, leaving Britain trading with Europe on World Trade Organisation terms, would reduce growth by 8 per cent over 15 years.
Based on average GDP growth over the past 5 years, that would cut output from £2.62 trillion by 2033 to £2.36 trillion, Best for Britain calculated – a loss of £252.4bn.
Click to expand...

A fall in GDP of just .001% in two consecutive quarters is a recession. The drop in 2008 - 3.5% I think - was the biggest since 1982 and had consequences in wages, austerity, business failure and so on that we're still feeling now.

8% is horrific. Eye-watering. It's what you'd expect after a war. And in this case, it's a self-inflicted wound in the interests of illusory sovereignty.

That seems pretty alarming to me.
 
r-u-s-x said:
like climate change, you then look at the sources and weight of opinion.
Click to expand...

Indeed, my point is simply that "because experts" doesnt always wash.

Particularly, IMO, with things like forecasting.

Im not saying Brexit will be all sunshine and rainbows, but have always maintained its that unprecedented many forecasting models fail straight away.

Add to which, nobody knows what post Brexit looks like, and I dont think its unfair to question their validity.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Indeed, my point is simply that "because experts" doesnt always wash.

Particularly, IMO, with things like forecasting.

Im not saying Brexit will be all sunshine and rainbows, but have always maintained its that unprecedented many forecasting models fail straight away.

Add to which, nobody knows what post Brexit looks like, and I dont think its unfair to question their validity.
Click to expand...

Did you read this when we were discussing this before?

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/weather-is-not-climate-forecasting-the-impacts-of-brexit/

It is certainly true that the short term impacts can be unpredictable but there isn't really much debate that putting barriers in the way of trade will make trade harder and it will reduce as a result. Pretty much all economists accept that this will have an impact on cross border supply chains and on industries that export heavily to the EU and nations that we have agreements with through the EU.

This is a list of countries that we trade with on zero or preferential tariffs as a result of our EU membership. Trade will be more difficult with far more than 27 other countries as a result of Brexit.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1024571095876296704
 
Some talk now, by ministers, of "we could get a no-deal by accident."

So, we are heading for no-deal and they want to absolve themselves of any blame should chaos ensue (???)

"We tried to get a deal, honest. We went to the EU with an offer we knew they'd reject and now, here we are. These things happen."
 
Gutter Boy said:
Climate stuff is a science. Politics and economics however are social sciences. You can have facts in science, but only opinions in social science
Click to expand...

You can have constants in the physical sciences, theories are easier to prove, and laws tend to last for longer. But social sciences and physical sciences have common models and principles; there isn't any distinction of the type you suggest.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Climate stuff is a science. Politics and economics however are social sciences. You can have facts in science, but only opinions in social science
Click to expand...
this is bollox in many ways but cant be bothered to go through them as you just ignore them anyway.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The problem with experts in these areas is we can all find one to back our view, cant we?
Click to expand...
That's why it's plural.

That's only a problem with people who mistrust "the establishment" (or in reality, anyone that threatens their preconceptions).
But it's certainly not a reason to NOT believe experts and replace them with political salesman
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Doesnt change the fact. The more there are, the more views there are, the more people will find an "expert" to suit them. Its the nature of it, and forecasting is more a guess than science, far too many assumptions to be reliable.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The more views you have the higher the probably of a theme of findings, which are therefore more likely to be accurate. No one with half a brain cell would use a single source.

Forecasting is just that, its analysis and modelling using knowledge and intelligence, not guess work.
Picking an opinion and hoping it will come true because that's what you want is guesswork.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Of course its guesswork. Doesnt matter how fancy your model is, its always based on guess/assumption up front.
Click to expand...

No, there's always data up front. Every forecasting model I've ever seen starts with current and historic data (normally incomplete), extrapolates to build an idealised set, and forecasts according to some assumptions which are either derived from the data, or imported from some other data set which provides the proxy.

Having said that, every forecasting model I've ever seen has also needed to be congruent with some other requirement: previous work (so your team doesn't look silly & inconsistent), other predictions (herding happens everywhere), customer requirements (you get whatever model you pay for, or whichever model provides the most comfort to the most stakeholders).

And it's the assumptions that one has to play with to get that congruence; no-one likes falsifying data. In extremis, we declare an unhelpful data point an "outlier" before disposing of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back