Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Voltaire7 wrote: »

Do Labour listen to the wrong type of economists?

I couldn't swear to it but it sounds like a highly plausible explanation.

How do you others think Labour manage to get it so spectacularly wrong so much of the time on the economy? I like Voltaire7's theory TBH.

Voltaire7

Generali wrote: »

I couldn't swear to it but it sounds like a highly plausible explanation.

How do you think Labour manage to get it so spectacularly wrong so much of the time on the economy? I like your theory TBH.

Quite. Economists are good at theory. Reality? Not so much!

A 2002 International Monetary Fund study looked at "consensus forecasts" (the forecasts of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions in the 1990s: in 97% of the cases the economists did not predict the contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated their severity.

Generali

Voltaire7 wrote: »

Quite. Economists are good at theory. Reality? Not so much!

A 2002 International Monetary Fund study looked at "consensus forecasts" (the forecasts of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions in the 1990s: in 97% of the cases the economists did not predict the contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated their severity.

Well that sort of study rather depends on what you think economists are there for.

What sort of economists do you think were studied and what sort of thing are they paid to do? (I know the answer BTW, just wondering if you do).

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Well that sort of study rather depends on what you think economists are there for.

What sort of economists do you think were studied and what sort of thing are they paid to do? (I know the answer BTW, just wondering if you do).

Here's my guess as a non-economist.

They are paid to model different economic outcomes using a variety of spending patterns / growth patterns / general world economy backgrounds to give the politicians the ability to correct rate any decisions for risk.

...ie the opposite of what Shakey does, when ignoring current or future potential dips in oil revenue

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Here's my guess as a non-economist.

They are paid to model different economic outcomes using a variety of spending patterns / growth patterns / general world economy backgrounds to give the politicians the ability to correct rate any decisions for risk.

The economists surveyed work for brokers and investment banks who are notorious for talking up markets and are paid to sell brokerage services, albeit indirectly. They are paid to be optimistic about the future so, unsurprisingly, they are optimistic about the future for the most part. There are very few so-called 'sell side' analysts who are perma-bears. I can think of two successful ones only one of whom is still working.

kabayiri wrote: »

...ie the opposite of what Shakey does, when ignoring current or future potential dips in oil revenue

STD on holidays:


At a meeting of fellow Cyber Nats:


Oil Price heading back towards its long term average level:


Not far to go now and it'll be back to where it was for years before the Fed started cutting interest rates in 2000.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm just doing what you do in your posts string ? I haven't seen much in the way of your own personal spreadsheets appearing here either ? When you do post one, I'll have no problem apologising to you for my misjudgement. Until then.. the only meaningful phrase I can think to cover it is... 'jog on'.

In fact apologising to past mistakes is not an SNP forte.

If I look at the group of posts which led to this particular spat, I can go back to post 1421 of Hamish (and indeed even before that) where, based on figures from the Scottish Government, he made a point about the deficit in Scotland’s (SNP) finances and asked how it could be solved.

Your reply, in post 1422, is summed up by “The figures/data come from the Treasury ….” And little else.

The subject went around and around after that, focussing largely on the contribution of the oil price collapse, with no concrete response on the figures and their consequences, but I’ll skip those and go on to kabayiri’s post 1601 where she was still asking for some sort of response on the remarks based on Hamish’s original question. Your reply in post 1602 was more of the same ducking and weaving.

My immediate reaction was to complain yet again about the ducking and weaving, but I posted (1603) with no such complaints, but just neutrally listing two links which gave opposing viewpoints on the state of the Scottish Economy in the hope that it would illicit some sort of opinion from you on figures rather than spin stuff on extraneous subjects. All I got back was a supercilious suggestion that I read the links which I just posted to you; so evasion again.

There were a couple of posts between us after that but I abandoned the exchange as a waste of time.

Personally I don’t expect a personal spreadsheet from anyone on this but a real discussion on the issues would be nice.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Actually, you will find that the fall in the oil price will have an immediate and direct impact on Scotland's economy.

What's that got to do with FFA or independence ?

In addition, a lot of the SNP's political arguments are completely negated once it is clear that this fall in the oil price means that Scotland is dependent on the UK for a large part of Government spending:

Well, after three years of being told just that, volatile high, low prices and oil running out.. support for independence only went up. Not down. Not quite enough to get over the line.. but in terms of your argument pretty much negates what you're saying.

extra handouts such as free prescriptions and free university education that are not available to English, Welsh and Northern Irish people are now being paid for by the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.

Translation :- I don't actually have a scooby doo how devolution works, nor recognise that anyone in Scotland pays tax.

If the SNP are in a coalition whether formal or simply informal support, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish are likely to get quite upset if the SNP use that to shovel yet more cash northwards.

I doubt they'll be shovelling cash anywhere. As for the other three 'regions' of the Uk being upset. Well there's very little they could do in practice. I doubt there will be many too upset if it happens though. SNP policies other than independence seem quite popular Uk wise, especially in more northern areas.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

If FFA or Independence is expected to be a few, or many years away, then surely the inclusion of a further referendum won't form part of of 2016 Holyroods manifest. Yet as a confirmed SNP member you seem to think it likely.

If it's not needed within the next 4 years for either a quick exit or bargaining chip (if anyone cares by that time), why would SNP include it.?

Who knows. Though I suspect they'll want try to negotiate devolving the power to hold referenda directly to Holyrood. FFA could be a gradual devolving of economic and political powers over the next five years, and putting the required legislation in place. Mabye the next one would be a devo-max one ? However, your guess is as good as mine. They won't hold another one until they're absolutely certain of winning it, that's for sure.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What's that got to do with FFA or independence ?

Well, after three years of being told just that, volatile high, low prices and oil running out.. support for independence only went up. Not down. Not quite enough to get over the line.. but in terms of your argument pretty much negates what you're saying.

Translation :- I don't actually have a scooby doo how devolution works, nor recognise that anyone in Scotland pays tax.

I doubt they'll be shovelling cash anywhere. As for the other three 'regions' of the Uk being upset. Well there's very little they could do in practice. I doubt there will be many too upset if it happens though. SNP policies other than independence seem quite popular Uk wise, especially in more northern areas.

Still attacking the messenger. "Jog on" as someone on this thread once said.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

STD on holidays:


At a meeting of fellow Cyber Nats:


Oil Price heading back towards its long term average level:


Not far to go now and it'll be back to where it was for years before the Fed started cutting interest rates in 2000.

I do apologise, I didn't realise I was debating on this forum with children. I'll make my posts simpler for you to understand next time... since it seems your levels and tone in debate are much lower than mine.