How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
The obvious interpretation is that Italians feel that Salvini was effective at the latest EU Summit, so they are rewarding him with greater support, and his perceived success then makes Quitaly less necessary in the eyes of some.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
He is a very bright guy, and (contrary to popular belief), not right-wing in many respects, although he is dry as dust on economics.
But, the brightest people get blinkered, and the EU draws down the blinkers like no other topic!
Yes, wasn't he a fellow of All Souls, which requires you passing literally the most difficult exam papers on earth?
Mr. Smith, if May wants us to have our trade dictated by the EU, to have our regulatory laws determined by the EU, to stay in the single market for goods, the electorate might conclude their vote to leave isn't being taken seriously.
Or they might not care that much about regulatory standards for the single market. And, to be honest, trade deals tend not to be a key concern for quite a large chunk of the electorate (to my annoyance some years back when I wanted to discuss it with colleagues who seemed to think I was a bit strange for caring that much...)
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
It's just obviously nonsense. Brexit has really shown how much these dupposedly objective economic studies are really just people picking assumptions to get the numbers to back their political preferences.
Why anyone takes economic forecasting seriously is beyond me.
The problem with economic forecasting is that there are so many variables that are outside the realm of the forecaster. So, say you are forecasting UK GDP - well, what will external demand from France for UK products be? Well, that depends on French GDP growth...
That being said, there are a number of things that we do know. We know that policies that encourage spending over saving will boost GDP in the short term, but at the expense of a wider current account deficit. Likewise, we know the converse is true. We know that rises in house prices boost GDP, through both imputed rent and lower savings rates. And that the opposite is true. We know that there is an ongoing and significant demographic drag that has seriously affected Japan and Italy, and will harm us in turn.
We know many things that help and hinder. What we cannot do is put a hard number of UK GDP growth for next year or 2025, because there are so many unknowns.
I would be interested to know the thesis of the World Bank economist. Certainly, I can sketch out several plausible Brexit scenarios where UK GDP is seriously and meaningfully hit relative to the baseline, but I can also sketch out others where it goes the other way.
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
It's just obviously nonsense. Brexit has really shown how much these dupposedly objective economic studies are really just people picking assumptions to get the numbers to back their political preferences.
That being said, there are a number of things that we do know. We know that policies that encourage spending over saving will boost GDP in the short term, but at the expense of a wider current account deficit. Likewise, we know the converse is true. We know that rises in house prices boost GDP, through both imputed rent and lower savings rates. And that the opposite is true. We know that there is an ongoing and significant demographic drag that has seriously affected Japan and Italy, and will harm us in turn. .
Is that not a problem with using GDP as a measure?
It would seem to me that rising (or falling) house prices are just redistributing wealth, rather than creating or destroying wealth.
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
He is a very bright guy, and (contrary to popular belief), not right-wing in many respects, although he is dry as dust on economics.
But, the brightest people get blinkered, and the EU draws down the blinkers like no other topic!
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
Which two of your three questions would you like us to consider?
I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding May like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Uk hasn't voted for a fat PM since 1951...
Anybody who has already been elected to parliament is manifestly capable of attracting more votes than their opponents. IMHO the UK electorate would grasp at anybody who seems to be competent. I find it hard to believe (a) that you are writing people off on the grounds of their size and (b) that you see Ms Thornberry in such terms as you use. But there, maybe that's how we have acquired such a useless array of non-talent in parliament. Never mind the competence, look at the height/breadth.
Spurious, Miss JGP. With our broken and increasingly corrupt electoral system, the identity of a candidate is increasingly irrelevant, let alone his / her girth.
The important thing is the weight of money behind a campaign - regardless of spending limits - and the extent to which they are prepared to make use of ill-obtained personal data.
It would be a very good thing indeed if we had a voting system - such as STV - whereby electors could discriminate among candidates with the same part label.
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Economic forecasting, though, is like quantum mechanics. The observation affects reality.
Say every forecaster in the entire world said that UK GDP growth was going to accelerate to 7% next year. (Disclaimer: I feel confident in saying it won't.) That would have the effect of encouraging portfolio flows to the UK, increasing money in circulation, and likely raising inflation. So, the forecast might lead to higher inflation, and therefore higher interest rates, and therefore lower economic growth.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'.
She still seems to be living in Cakeland. Though I imagine it's a lot nicer there than her actual reality.
I don't know; the EU seems to be emitting conciliatory smoke-signals, but we'll see.
Not surprisingly. She's let the entire EU know she's prepared to betray her own party for the sake of a BRINO settlement.
Now she just needs to fudge services, free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and it's a done deal.
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
1. They do have an address in NYC. 2. I suspect that most fields would have a number of more prestigious journals and that if you could not find one of them to accept your paper then the paper probably isn't worth publishing (or you can just release it as a non peer reviewed "commentary" if you want to be sure that it is at least in the public domain). 3. All the established science journals that I have contact with have outsourced a lot of their operations to India, for matters to do with formatting, etc. Maybe marketing as well now.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
John Redwood is an interesting one to me.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
I like following his blog although we agree on almost nothing. I think the difference is that Redwood is looking longer term on this.
In the short term, introducing the tariffs, those customs union checks etc. would surely really hurt some businesses and (if they are being even remotely truthful) cause big job losses. But in the longer term businesses would adapt, we would buy more of our own goods etc.
I think that transition would be much more painful than he thinks, but I can see how you could convince yourself short-term economic pain is worth it if you really care about goals like sovereignty which are forever.
The problem with economic forecasting is that there are so many variables that are outside the realm of the forecaster. So, say you are forecasting UK GDP - well, what will external demand from France for UK products be? Well, that depends on French GDP growth...
That being said, there are a number of things that we do know. We know that policies that encourage spending over saving will boost GDP in the short term, but at the expense of a wider current account deficit. Likewise, we know the converse is true. We know that rises in house prices boost GDP, through both imputed rent and lower savings rates. And that the opposite is true. We know that there is an ongoing and significant demographic drag that has seriously affected Japan and Italy, and will harm us in turn.
We know many things that help and hinder. What we cannot do is put a hard number of UK GDP growth for next year or 2025, because there are so many unknowns.
I would be interested to know the thesis of the World Bank economist. Certainly, I can sketch out several plausible Brexit scenarios where UK GDP is seriously and meaningfully hit relative to the baseline, but I can also sketch out others where it goes the other way.
I accept that economics is useful for discussing contemporary and historic events, and describing in a precise fashion how aspects of the economy interact and what outcomes they are likely to produce. Economics is great at looking backwards in time and saying what happened, and less good at saying why (much like all social sciences, where the accepted "why" often changes over time).
And you can certainly model the economy, and examine how it may develop using that model. I don't challenge that at all. Modelling is a useful tool.
But forecasting is inherently error prone as a model can never fully capture the economy, and will inevitably not include "black swans" which may be infrequent but are actually the things that shape the way the world is how it is. Everything from a war, to an election, to scientific discoveries, technological development, and all the other things that I've already mentioned.
The further ahead you forecast the worse it gets. 15 years ahead is well into the "you might as well just guess" range.
If forecasting really worked people wouldn't sell or publicise it.
In the short term, introducing the tariffs, those customs union checks etc. would surely really hurt some businesses and (if they are being even remotely truthful) cause big job losses. But in the longer term businesses would adapt, we would buy more of our own goods etc.
I think that transition would be much more painful than he thinks, but I can see how you could convince yourself short-term economic pain is worth it if you really care about goals like sovereignty which are forever.
It's very easy to convince yourself of the benefits of inflicting massive economic damage on the country when it's not your career that's on the line.
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Not sure what you mean
Homoousians believe that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Homoiousians believe that the Son is of like substance to the Father.
That took a while to dig out - Wikipedia upper level?
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Economic forecasting, though, is like quantum mechanics. The observation affects reality.
Say every forecaster in the entire world said that UK GDP growth was going to accelerate to 7% next year. (Disclaimer: I feel confident in saying it won't.) That would have the effect of encouraging portfolio flows to the UK, increasing money in circulation, and likely raising inflation. So, the forecast might lead to higher inflation, and therefore higher interest rates, and therefore lower economic growth.
Do you really think that effect is going to be very significant?
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
1. They do have an address in NYC. 2. I suspect that most fields would have a number of more prestigious journals and that if you could not find one of them to accept your paper then the paper probably isn't worth publishing (or you can just release it as a non peer reviewed "commentary" if you want to be sure that it is at least in the public domain). 3. All the established science journals that I have contact with have outsourced a lot of their operations to India, for matters to do with formatting, etc. Maybe marketing as well now.
Thanks. I posted this tongue in cheek to point out the poor marketing of what would purport to be a serious journal.
So far, I have not had problems getting papers published. Now writing them, that's another matter.
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Economic forecasting, though, is like quantum mechanics. The observation affects reality.
Say every forecaster in the entire world said that UK GDP growth was going to accelerate to 7% next year. (Disclaimer: I feel confident in saying it won't.) That would have the effect of encouraging portfolio flows to the UK, increasing money in circulation, and likely raising inflation. So, the forecast might lead to higher inflation, and therefore higher interest rates, and therefore lower economic growth.
Very true. Of course, in the idealistic scenario of perfect economic forecasts, you would expect that people/governments to react to the forecasts and for this to then change the outcome.
That's certainly a knotty one to deal with, which does make me think that economic forecasting should principally be seen as a psychological discipline, rather than a mathematical one.
I think that transition would be much more painful than he thinks, but I can see how you could convince yourself short-term economic pain is worth it if you really care about goals like sovereignty which are forever.
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
Which two of your three questions would you like us to consider?
Yes, I left the two in deliberately once I added the third question for irony value.
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
That's certainly a knotty one to deal with, which does make me think that economic forecasting should principally be seen as a psychological discipline, rather than a mathematical one.
Economists, convincing nobody, like to insist that their profession is an empirical science. Whereas everyone else knows it's about as close to an empirical science as astrology is.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
"Dear [my name] Good day! We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB: 1. Is this truly an American journal? 2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess? 3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
Probably not a natural English speaker. Could be an American though.
In addition as was seen in the Lewisham East by election some Labour Remainers are willing to make a LD protest vote if necessary over what they see as Corbyn's failure to oppose Brexit and support membership of the single market.
Not one current poll suggests a Labour majority either, so if Corbyn does get in power it will likely be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid and the Greens and maybe even the LDs too
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
I think that's the logical next step. But - of course - there are costs to the US of effectively walking away from NATO. Next time the US wants to use bases in Europe to project power in the Middle East, for example, they will be SOL.
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
Italy was one of the 6 founder signatories of the EEC and one of the founder members of the Eurozone. It us unlikely to leave the EU or the Euro. Italy's complaints are more over weak migration controls and too much austerity
Of more relevance this year now for the EU project though will be non Eurozone Sweden where the far right Swedish Democrats have promised a Swexit referendum and lead several Swedish polls for September's Swedish general election
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Not sure what you mean
Homoousians believe that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Homoiousians believe that the Son is of like substance to the Father.
That took a while to dig out - Wikipedia upper level?
Here's a thought, if the ERG lot don't have the 48 votes to trigger a VONC are we sure they'll be able to get a favoured son or daughter onto the final two for the next Tory leadership contest?
You could give the members a choice of Hunt or Soubry.
And risk UKIP under a returmed Farage overtaking the Tories and the Tories coming third
I wonder if Labour will be tempted to support the Moggmendment on the Irish Sea? It looks like an easy way to cause chaos in the Tory ranks and make remaining in the customs union more likely.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Here's a thought, if the ERG lot don't have the 48 votes to trigger a VONC are we sure they'll be able to get a favoured son or daughter onto the final two for the next Tory leadership contest?
The ERG lot could not even agree on a favoured son or daughter, let alone get them elected.
It could still be Hammond as Brexit converges on what he forecast originally (albeit he was probably just reading a Treasury briefing note). 50/1 with Shadsy and an odds boost if you are lucky.
Who are the grown-ups left? Hunt, Javid, Hammond; who else?
Anybody who thinks Phil "If it moves I am going to tax it" Hammond will be next Tory leader is not on planet reality (in my opinion of course).
It's like the World Cup. Three weeks ago everyone said England would be lucky to get past the round of 16 and Croatia has a smaller population than Scotland. Yet here we are.
So who will be the semi-finalists in the Tory leadership betting? The Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and who? Not who do you like or who would you vote for or even (thanks to this thread) who ate all the pies but who has a solid defence, creative midfield and a top striker? Who will the draw open up for? Hunt maybe? I don't know if anyone had the foresight to tip him at 100/1 when Hunt was at Health but now he is in one of the great offices of state and will shake hands with The Donald. If I were a lady Cabinet minister's SpAd I might advise her to polish up her twitter feed and take elocution lessons but is there another bloke in the running?
The final four in the Tory leadership race will I now think be Javid, Boris, Gove and Hunt in that order with maybe Williamson or Mordaunt or Patel bringing up the rear. Mogg I think will back Boris and maybe Davis too.
The members would then choose between Javid and Boris
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Not sure what you mean
Homoousians believe that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Homoiousians believe that the Son is of like substance to the Father.
That took a while to dig out - Wikipedia upper level?
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
I think that's the logical next step. But - of course - there are costs to the US of effectively walking away from NATO. Next time the US wants to use bases in Europe to project power in the Middle East, for example, they will be SOL.
I don't think Trump is that interested in projecting power in the Middle East other than lobbing a few cruise missiles and backing Israel. He really is 'America First'
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
I think he should withdraw the USA from NATO, and announce a new defense pact that friendly nations can join should they spend the requisite amounts on defense.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Yes, Europe is going to have to do more of its own defence.
Trump is interested in a trade war with the EU not armed conflict with Putin who he respects as a fellow strongman
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
NATO reportedly spends 13x what Russia spends on defence. How much of that is spending by European countries not the USA & Canada?
Then add defence spending by Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. None are in NATO and all probably wish it would f.off so that the EU - for the four which are members - could organise collective self-defence, i.e. without taking actions which would make it seem a threat to Russia.
NATO's sole adversary, the Warsaw Pact, evaporated 25 years ago.
Most neutral countries seem to spend 1-2%, not >2%. Ireland spends <1%.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
Oh yes, he is right, and it's about time this issue was more openly discussed. The combination of German support (via Schröder's chairmanship) of Putin's Nordstream project (gasline through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea to Greifswald in Germany) bypassing Poland and Ukraine together with Merkel's crazy "green" policies of discontinuing coal and nuclear comprise a clear strategic threat to Western Europe.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
Labour's privacy expert Tom Watson should be all over this gross abuse of data. Or perhaps not:
"A company that offers pregnant women and new parents health advice and gifts, faces a fine for illegally sharing more than a million people's personal data with the Labour Party."
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
As a matter of interest as Brexit becomes much more complex and controversial how on earth will Corbyn even start to comprehend it let only debate it. This is not about buses or manhole covers
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.
Much like labour
Labour's Brexit split is much more uneven - the are only a handful of hard Brexiteers- Hoey, Field, Stringer, Hopkins- all the rest are in favour of a softer approach, and anyway Labour is in opposition so the pressure to come up with detailed answers is much less.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
Is it the job of a weather forecast to be exciting?
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.
Much like labour
Labour's Brexit split is much more uneven - the are only a handful of hard Brexiteers- Hoey, Field, Stringer, Hopkins- all the rest are in favour of a softer approach, and anyway Labour is in opposition so the pressure to come up with detailed answers is much less.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
The real difficulty with economic forecasting is the human element is inherently unpredictable. You can know, for example, that a credit bubble will burst but you can't know when - or how. Likewise, you can assume that there'll be a recession some time in the next ten years, and as far as deficits and so on, you can (and should) to some extent model for that to determine how sustainable government finances are - but you can't say when it'll happen.
If a firm can deal with the mess of collecting VAT under EU regulations, it can manage the online customs system.
(That being said, the technology does need updating. The customs system assumes that all goods from outside the EU come on either a boat or a plane. That will need to change. Just don't let Accenture near it.)
If a firm can deal with the mess of collecting VAT under EU regulations, it can manage the online customs system.
(That being said, the technology does need updating. The customs system assumes that all goods from outside the EU come on either a boat or a plane. That will need to change. Just don't let Accenture near it.)
You just know that some poor future minister in 2037 is going to be trying to explain why it's 15 years later and the max fac magitech still doesn't actually seem to work or exist.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
They should tell him to stick his military up his pipe, give them 30 days to get out. Only way to deal with bullies is to give them a taste of their own medicine or they just keep coming back.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
Especially in politics, where Mrs Merkel cannot look weak to her voters.
A supplier to Trump never has to publicly admit he slashed prices to appease an angry customer. (Said supplier will take the hit, and simply won't deal with Trump again.)
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
The real difficulty with economic forecasting is the human element is inherently unpredictable. You can know, for example, that a credit bubble will burst but you can't know when - or how. Likewise, you can assume that there'll be a recession some time in the next ten years, and as far as deficits and so on, you can (and should) to some extent model for that to determine how sustainable government finances are - but you can't say when it'll happen.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Most NATO countries would not have the native industrial capacity to meet such an increase, and would have to buy lots of expensive kit from abroad. I wonder which country would have the most to gain from such an arrangement?
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
Is it the job of a weather forecast to be exciting?
Some of the forecasters do manage to stir the blood...
Usual Tory troughers , always do the opposite of what they preach, greedy barstewards.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
Is it the job of a weather forecast to be exciting?
Some of the forecasters do manage to stir the blood...
Usual Tory troughers , always do the opposite of what they preach, greedy barstewards.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
Oh yes, he is right, and it's about time this issue was more openly discussed. The combination of German support (via Schröder's chairmanship) of Putin's Nordstream project (gasline through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea to Greifswald in Germany) bypassing Poland and Ukraine together with Merkel's crazy "green" policies of discontinuing coal and nuclear comprise a clear strategic threat to Western Europe.
Actually, no they don't.
Western Europe is more energy independent now than at any time in the last 40 years. The combination of Norway, LNG, alternative power sources, and lower energy demand mean it is imports only around 30% of its calories now, compared to around 50% at the start of the 1970s, and the number is falling every year. (It's even falling in Germany.)
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
Is it the job of a weather forecast to be exciting?
Some of the forecasters do manage to stir the blood...
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
The real difficulty with economic forecasting is the human element is inherently unpredictable. You can know, for example, that a credit bubble will burst but you can't know when - or how. Likewise, you can assume that there'll be a recession some time in the next ten years, and as far as deficits and so on, you can (and should) to some extent model for that to determine how sustainable government finances are - but you can't say when it'll happen.
There is a further difficulty in getting people to understand what economic forecasts actually are. They are not unconditional predictions. Official forecasts are normally based on the premise of given economic policies and their effectiveness. Some private forecasts attempt to predict future policies, such as using Taylor rules to model a Central Bank's monetary position, but that adds further complexity and variance to the forecasts. It is best to see all these forecasts as "what ifs" and look as carefully at the assumptions as the conditional outcomes.
Usual Tory troughers , always do the opposite of what they preach, greedy barstewards.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
Do you have a link to that?
It is on twitter so it is gospel, Scottp told me twitter was infallible Just trust me I am a doctor
It's not really a question of forecasting, or not forecasting, but how you create your forecast. Even if you say you are not forecasting in reality you are probably making a forecast of persistence.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Good points that I agree with.
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Yes, broadly speaking that rule of thumb is correct for the UK. It's why most broadcast weather forecasts are so dull (to Paxman's famous chagrin). It would have been even better than that over the last month.
Is it the job of a weather forecast to be exciting?
Some of the forecasters do manage to stir the blood...
Usual Tory troughers , always do the opposite of what they preach, greedy barstewards.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
Do you have a link to that?
It is on twitter so it is gospel, Scottp told me twitter was infallible Just trust me I am a doctor
You fell for fake news.
Ian Blackford spent £40k on travel and accommodation last year
I think the answer to this thread header is pretty simple - Corbyn is not that awesome, certainly not as awesome as his true believers pretend (nor was May at the height of her powers), and people are recognising that, particularly after the high of a better than expected GE performance made even those opposed to him think better of him.
Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.
Has he told the CIA?
From their World Factbook
4.24% of GDP (2012) 3.83% of GDP (2013) 3.51% of GDP (2014) 3.3% of GDP (2015) 3.29% of GDP (2016) spending maintained in 2017 Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.
If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.
Comments
That being said, there are a number of things that we do know. We know that policies that encourage spending over saving will boost GDP in the short term, but at the expense of a wider current account deficit. Likewise, we know the converse is true. We know that rises in house prices boost GDP, through both imputed rent and lower savings rates. And that the opposite is true. We know that there is an ongoing and significant demographic drag that has seriously affected Japan and Italy, and will harm us in turn.
We know many things that help and hinder. What we cannot do is put a hard number of UK GDP growth for next year or 2025, because there are so many unknowns.
I would be interested to know the thesis of the World Bank economist. Certainly, I can sketch out several plausible Brexit scenarios where UK GDP is seriously and meaningfully hit relative to the baseline, but I can also sketch out others where it goes the other way.
Given that [formal/systematic] weather forecasts were first made nearly 160 years ago it is only relatively recently that they have consistently out-performed persistence in forecast skill, but now weather forecasts are very good indeed - and crucially they can forecast the high impact changes in the weather (many recent storms and hurricanes well forecast from before they existed) that economic "forecasting" is still incapable of doing in even a rudimentary way.
I have no idea whether economic forecasting models outperform persistence, but it would be an interesting comparison to make.
Like me.
(I'll watch later. Right now I'm messing about on PB to avoid finishing my No Deal Brexit script...)
"Dear [my name]
Good day!
We get to know your precious paper with the title [paper title] which has been published in [journal name], and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot. The paper has attracted attention from scholars specializing in this field.
Initiated with an aim to advance the development of scientific community, American Journal of Applied Scientific Research provides specialists in various scopes with good access to the latest scientific researches. Given the advance, novelty, and potential wide applications of your innovation, we invite you with sincerity to submit other unpublished manuscripts of similar themes to the journal. Your further research on this article is also welcomed."
Two questions for the collective genius of PB:
1. Is this truly an American journal?
2. Would you submit for publication in a journal with this verbal prowess?
3. What do you think is the mother tongue of the author?
Looks to be legit.
@RikeFranke
New poll on German views on defence spending.
Spending 1.5% GDP on defence (current goal) is ABOUT RIGHT: 24%
1.5% is TOO MUCH: 36%
In favour of spending MORE than 1.5% GDP: 15%
No answer: 25%
#NATOSummit
https://amp.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article179144290/Umfrage-Deutsche-sind-klar-gegen-Erhoehung-von-Militaerausgaben.html?__twitter_impression=true …
9 replies 35 retweets 34 likes"
The important thing is the weight of money behind a campaign - regardless of spending limits - and the extent to which they are prepared to make use of ill-obtained personal data.
It would be a very good thing indeed if we had a voting system - such as STV - whereby electors could discriminate among candidates with the same part label.
Say every forecaster in the entire world said that UK GDP growth was going to accelerate to 7% next year. (Disclaimer: I feel confident in saying it won't.) That would have the effect of encouraging portfolio flows to the UK, increasing money in circulation, and likely raising inflation. So, the forecast might lead to higher inflation, and therefore higher interest rates, and therefore lower economic growth.
Now she just needs to fudge services, free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and it's a done deal.
THEN she needs to convince Labour to support it.
2. I suspect that most fields would have a number of more prestigious journals and that if you could not find one of them to accept your paper then the paper probably isn't worth publishing (or you can just release it as a non peer reviewed "commentary" if you want to be sure that it is at least in the public domain).
3. All the established science journals that I have contact with have outsourced a lot of their operations to India, for matters to do with formatting, etc. Maybe marketing as well now.
I think the difference is that Redwood is looking longer term on this.
In the short term, introducing the tariffs, those customs union checks etc. would surely really hurt some businesses and (if they are being even remotely truthful) cause big job losses. But in the longer term businesses would adapt, we would buy more of our own goods etc.
I think that transition would be much more painful than he thinks, but I can see how you could convince yourself short-term economic pain is worth it if you really care about goals like sovereignty which are forever.
And you can certainly model the economy, and examine how it may develop using that model. I don't challenge that at all. Modelling is a useful tool.
But forecasting is inherently error prone as a model can never fully capture the economy, and will inevitably not include "black swans" which may be infrequent but are actually the things that shape the way the world is how it is. Everything from a war, to an election, to scientific discoveries, technological development, and all the other things that I've already mentioned.
The further ahead you forecast the worse it gets. 15 years ahead is well into the "you might as well just guess" range.
If forecasting really worked people wouldn't sell or publicise it.
So far, I have not had problems getting papers published. Now writing them, that's another matter.
That's certainly a knotty one to deal with, which does make me think that economic forecasting should principally be seen as a psychological discipline, rather than a mathematical one.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/994887718130864128
I seem to recall a rule of thumb that ~80% of the time repeating yesterday's weather forecast would be right to an acceptable margin of error.
Not one current poll suggests a Labour majority either, so if Corbyn does get in power it will likely be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid and the Greens and maybe even the LDs too
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/brexit-meets-gravity.html?action=click&module=Trending&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer&contentCollection=Trending
https://twitter.com/zachjourno/status/1017057552453029889
Of more relevance this year now for the EU project though will be non Eurozone Sweden where the far right Swedish Democrats have promised a Swexit referendum and lead several Swedish polls for September's Swedish general election
The members would then choose between Javid and Boris
Trump is interested in a trade war with the EU not armed conflict with Putin who he respects as a fellow strongman
Then add defence spending by Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. None are in NATO and all probably wish it would f.off so that the EU - for the four which are members - could organise collective self-defence, i.e. without taking actions which would make it seem a threat to Russia.
NATO's sole adversary, the Warsaw Pact, evaporated 25 years ago.
Most neutral countries seem to spend 1-2%, not >2%. Ireland spends <1%.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/trump-strikes-combative-tone-as-leaders-arrive-nato-update
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
"A company that offers pregnant women and new parents health advice and gifts, faces a fine for illegally sharing more than a million people's personal data with the Labour Party."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44794635
This looks like a minor revision to an earlier claim by the customs that was much ridiculed at the time.
https://reaction.life/revealed-hmrc-customs-bill-brexit-overstated-much-18bn/
If a firm can deal with the mess of collecting VAT under EU regulations, it can manage the online customs system.
(That being said, the technology does need updating. The customs system assumes that all goods from outside the EU come on either a boat or a plane. That will need to change. Just don't let Accenture near it.)
NATO members should be spending the 2% - that's what they agreed to. Trump cannot unilaterally impose obligations on others though.
A supplier to Trump never has to publicly admit he slashed prices to appease an angry customer. (Said supplier will take the hit, and simply won't deal with Trump again.)
But nations don't work like that.
Come on, I want to see the football
Let him.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
Western Europe is more energy independent now than at any time in the last 40 years. The combination of Norway, LNG, alternative power sources, and lower energy demand mean it is imports only around 30% of its calories now, compared to around 50% at the start of the 1970s, and the number is falling every year. (It's even falling in Germany.)
Just trust me I am a doctor
Ian Blackford spent £40k on travel and accommodation last year
http://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs/your-mp/ian-blackford/
Angus MacNeill spent 20k
http://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs/your-mp/angus-macneil/
So that's 60k for just two SNP MPs, so do we really think the other 33 had just 2k worth of expenses between them?
Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.
From their World Factbook
4.24% of GDP (2012)
3.83% of GDP (2013)
3.51% of GDP (2014)
3.3% of GDP (2015)
3.29% of GDP (2016)
spending maintained in 2017
Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.
If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.