Why the BoE got Brexit forecasts wrong

TrickyTree83

cogito wrote: »

I just find in incredible that the BoE would use newspaper articles serving a particular agenda as any kind of basis for making economic forecasts. Suppose they had used articles from pro-Brexit newspapers instead? The BoE forecasts would probably have been rather more accurate.

Trying to gauge sentiment/consumer confidence I guess.

Given the disparity between the news media's agenda and the actual economic outcome over the last full quarter I suspect this measure will be weighted lower in its impact on the economy in future.

It would be interesting to see statistics on trust in the UK media. Does anyone have any?

CLAPTON

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Trying to gauge sentiment/consumer confidence I guess.

Given the disparity between the news media's agenda and the actual economic outcome over the last full quarter I suspect this measure will be weighted lower in its impact on the economy in future.

It would be interesting to see statistics on trust in the UK media. Does anyone have any?

I think (but may be wrong) that the measure used is simply a count of the number of times 'economic uncertainty' occurs in the FT, Times, Guardian, Independent; superficially it seems absurd but would welcome anyone's view that knows a bit more.

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

I think (but may be wrong) that the measure used is simply a count of the number of times 'economic uncertainty' occurs in the FT, Times, Guardian, Independent; superficially it seems absurd but would welcome anyone's view that knows a bit more.

I would hope it's more than just a count of the number of times economic uncertainty is mentioned, I'd hope they cross-reference with average readership or hits on the article also. Which is why I called it sentiment, I'd find it extremely odd and disturbing if it were just a count of the number of times a journalist uses the phrase economic uncertainty in forming MPC opinion and direction.

westernpromise

Sapphire wrote: »

I'm far more worried about us staying in the EU for much longer, given the economic state it is in.

Whenever I heard Bremainers arguing that a vote to leave was folly because you didn't know what it meant, my reaction was that a vote to stay is also folly because you don't know what that means either.

When Blair repeated this the other day, that was when I knew it was a knowing, deliberate lie. It is quite untrue to say that Brexit is like a house swap where you've not seen the other house. Brexit is actually more like a house swap where you haven't seen either house but at least the one you're swapping to is yours.

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

Trouble is, arrogant, pious wide eyed liberals all over the media keep referring to these crystal ball guesses as 'evidence'. One woman from The Observer when on Sky's 'Paper Review' endlessly insists this is evidence and 100% factual, and her eyes widen to an enormous size if anyone questions this orthodoxy. I think this is why the public are having such trouble respecting liberals

I'd challenge anyone that criticises to forecast the direction of the economy themselves. Difficult enough to prepare a cashflow for a Company without making weekly revisions.

hildosaver

cogito wrote: »

They believed the doom mongering in the newspapers that supported Remain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/28/doom-mongering-brexit-forecasts-have-serious-holes-reality/

What a bunch of clowns. To think that management of the economy is entrusted to them.

Sorry, I didnt realise BREXIT had already occurred. I was under the mistaken assumption it had not happened yet since we havent even invoked article 50 yet.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'd challenge anyone that criticises to forecast the direction of the economy themselves. Difficult enough to prepare a cashflow for a Company without making weekly revisions.

it would be interesting if every forecast statement was preceeded by a outturn statement : so that their previous forecasts were compared with the actual outturn and an explanation of the variance.

the latest forecasts by OBR and IFS were blatantly propoganda : they clearly gave the impression that the 10 years of 'no wage ' growth was due to brexit even thought the period under discussion was 2010 to 2020/1.

previously presentations that enphasis growth 'less than previous views' have given the (deliberate) impression that GDP would fall rather than grow even if more slowly.

CLAPTON

hildosaver wrote: »

Sorry, I didnt realise BREXIT had already occurred. I was under the mistaken assumption it had not happened yet since we haven't even invoked article 50 yet.

there were several (dire) forecasts about what would happen immediately after a 'leave' result : most have not come to past.
People living in a post truth bubble either deny or ignore this but that's alright as long as you show a little funny icon after the nonsense

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

there were several (dire) forecasts about what would happen immediately after a 'leave' result : most have not come to past.

Weren't we also told that Cameron would invoke article 50 straight away?

I'm no expert but maybe there's a link there.

It seems weird that one minute people are having a pop at "project fear" because Cameron resigned instead of invoking A50 instantly and then conveniently forgetting about it again in their next post. A bit of consistency wouldn't hurt.

Personally I reckon anyone claiming Brexit is a success before A50 has even happened is slightly unhinged.

Masomnia

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Weren't we also told that Cameron would invoke article 50 straight away?

I'm no expert but maybe there's a link there.

So was that:
A. A deliberate lie?
B. Incompetence?
C. Deliberately assuming the worst case scenario?

Either way it doesn't look good. If they can't get day 1 correct why should we trust projections for years form now?