Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You need to do a bit of reading up on the history of economic modelling/profiling. But it will upset you. It's success rates are shockingly poor, and I'm not just referring to recent events.

Which is why we continue to use it as a tool globally in every industry on the planet, because the results are so shockingly poor. Really!

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

6 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Not that I can think of.  Breaking free from an organisation bent on creating a federal Europe ruled by a bunch of unreasonable and inflexible old men who we have no direct power to elect or de-select is the only one I think.

"Breaking free" of the land mass of Europe to the East with only the Atlantic ocean to our West, what could possibly go wrong! 

 

More deliberate misinterpretation by simoh1490. We're not breaking free from Europe. We're breaking free from an unnecessary and unsavoury tier of European government.

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Which is why we continue to use it as a tool globally in every industry on the planet, because the results are so shockingly poor. Really!

 

Deflection.

[Khun Han]

The accuracy of economic prediction:

 

https://www.economist.com/node/21685480

 

A random number generator beat the economists. You couldn't make that up  .

Edited March 15, 2018 by Khun Han

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

He's referring to the Illuminati, please show more reverence.

 

Er, no. You're the one going on about the Illuminati, with one of your deliberate misinterpretations. I merely pointed out the bald fact that the UK is heavily in hock to the global banks and multinationals, which gives them power and influence over the UK.

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

The accuracy of economic prediction:

 

https://www.economist.com/node/21685480

 

A random number generator beat the economists. You couldn't make that up  .

You went to all that trouble to find a decent article that would support your belief that economic modelling is unreliable but despite having found one, you completely failed to understand what was written in the artcile even though it gave you a simple graph to read, in summary, you got the results back to front!  Now I understand why you don't like financial models, you don't understand them!! Gun, foot shoot.

 

For anyone else who happens to look at the graph without bothering to read the article or fails to understand it: The graph shows and is titled, "absolute mean error of GDP forecasts", (there's a clue in the title) it's based on a scale that runs from -10 to +2 (13 digits) and compares THE ERROR RATES of three derived outcomes which are then displayed in the graph and ranked 0-5, the higher number being the least accurate, the lower number being the most accurate. "Encouragingly, the guesses produced by our random-number generator performed worst (see chart); it yielded predictions that were off by 4.4 percentage points on average". 

 

There is, however, one very true and useful line in the article that you could have used to support your argument, spotting it and using it would have earned you some plus points and that is, " “Regression to the mean is perhaps the single most robust and empirically relevant fact about cross-national growth rates.” In other words, booming countries slow down and slumping ones speed up". There is, therefore, a statistical basis to assume that the currently flagging UK economy will, in fact, improve in the future, how, why or when however remains totally unclear.

 

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Looks like the UK will be paying the piper until 2064.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/britain-will-still-be-paying-for-brexit-in-2064-forecasters-say

If the track record on removing the deficit is anything to go by, more likely 2164

[Chomper Higgot]

I see Theresa May and her cabinet became very pro-EU this week when they needed moral and practical support in responding to an assault on UK sovereignty by Russia.

 

I can't for the life of me think why she didn't simply wave the Union Jack and speak as a single nation without the need for the support of 'Johnny Foreigner'. 

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see Theresa May and her cabinet became very pro-EU this week when they needed moral and practical support in responding to an assault on UK sovereignty by Russia.

 

I can't for the life of me think why she didn't simply wave the Union Jack and speak as a single nation without the need for the support of 'Johnny Foreigner'. 

 

That would be a rather stupid approach, if you don't mind me saying.

 

That approach would not have been taken prior to EEC entry nor will it be after EU exit.

 

God Bless America!

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see Theresa May and her cabinet became very pro-EU this week when they needed moral and practical support in responding to an assault on UK sovereignty by Russia.

 

I can't for the life of me think why she didn't simply wave the Union Jack and speak as a single nation without the need for the support of 'Johnny Foreigner'. 

May has always been pro EU. This is not news.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see Theresa May and her cabinet became very pro-EU this week when they needed moral and practical support in responding to an assault on UK sovereignty by Russia.

 

I can't for the life of me think why she didn't simply wave the Union Jack and speak as a single nation without the need for the support of 'Johnny Foreigner'. 

I'm more suprised that a spy being killed has suddenly turned into an international incident - requiring the intervention of various countries!

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm more suprised that a spy being killed has suddenly turned into an international incident - requiring the intervention of various countries!

Perhaps because you have no problem with a foreign power murdering people in the UK with an internationally banned chemical weapon.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

May has always been pro EU. This is not news.

And tge rest of her cabinet keenly seeking EU support?

[dick dasterdly]

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm more suprised that a spy being killed has suddenly turned into an international incident - requiring the intervention of various countries!

 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps because you have no problem with a foreign power murdering people in the UK with an internationally banned chemical weapon.

 

 

You somehow managed to miss the point of my post, which is about the unusual, international outrage over the murderous attack on a spy....

Edited March 16, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And tge rest of her cabinet keenly seeking EU support?

Which brings us back to whether or not we believe the govt. is looking for a way to 'remain' whilst calling it 'leave' - to appease the voters.... 

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

You somehow managed to miss the point of my post, which is about the unusual, international outrage over the murderous attack on a spy....

 

They presented the case to the UN security council, it would not be unusual for the other countries to comment on what was presented to them.

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

You went to all that trouble to find a decent article that would support your belief that economic modelling is unreliable but despite having found one, you completely failed to understand what was written in the artcile even though it gave you a simple graph to read, in summary, you got the results back to front!  Now I understand why you don't like financial models, you don't understand them!! Gun, foot shoot.

 

For anyone else who happens to look at the graph without bothering to read the article or fails to understand it: The graph shows and is titled, "absolute mean error of GDP forecasts", (there's a clue in the title) it's based on a scale that runs from -10 to +2 (13 digits) and compares THE ERROR RATES of three derived outcomes which are then displayed in the graph and ranked 0-5, the higher number being the least accurate, the lower number being the most accurate. "Encouragingly, the guesses produced by our random-number generator performed worst (see chart); it yielded predictions that were off by 4.4 percentage points on average". 

 

There is, however, one very true and useful line in the article that you could have used to support your argument, spotting it and using it would have earned you some plus points and that is, " “Regression to the mean is perhaps the single most robust and empirically relevant fact about cross-national growth rates.” In other words, booming countries slow down and slumping ones speed up". There is, therefore, a statistical basis to assume that the currently flagging UK economy will, in fact, improve in the future, how, why or when however remains totally unclear.

 

 

Sorry, but your long-winded post is yet another misinterpretation (more akin to a total garble) of what the article actually says. And you have the nerve to accuse me of failing to understand it.

 

And here are a couple more 'quite good' articles for you to misunderstand:

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/opinion/sunday/when-forecasters-get-it-wrong-always.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/economic-forecasts-are-almost-always-wrong-so-why-do-we-take-them-seriously/

 

 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Sorry, but your long-winded post is yet another misinterpretation (more akin to a total garble) of what the article actually says. And you have the nerve to accuse me of failing to understand it.

 

And here are a couple more 'quite good' articles for you to misunderstand:

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/opinion/sunday/when-forecasters-get-it-wrong-always.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/economic-forecasts-are-almost-always-wrong-so-why-do-we-take-them-seriously/

 

 

 

It was you who misinterpreted the article you posted, I have the nerve to accuse you of that because you stated that the random number generator beat the economists when in the article it states the opposite, now man up and admit you misunderstood it instead of trying to hide behind articles that say nothing to support your original erroneous claim.

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It was you who misinterpreted the article you posted, I have the nerve to accuse you of that because you stated that the random number generator beat the economists when in the article it states the opposite, now man up and admit you misunderstood it instead of trying to hide behind articles that say nothing to support your original erroneous claim.

 

From the article:

 

"Over the period, there were 220 instances in which an economy grew in one year before shrinking in the next. In its April forecasts the IMF never once foresaw the contraction looming in the next year. Even in October of the year in question, the IMF predicted that a recession had begun only half the time. To be fair, an average-growth prediction also misses 100% of recessions. One model does better, though. Our random-number generator correctly forecast the start of a recession 18% of the time."

 

If you are able to read the above, you will see that the IMF's best result for one particular month was 50% accuracy, and it's worst result was 0% accuracy for another particular month. The random number generator's accuracy was 18%. In what universe does 0% accuracy beat 18% accuracy?.

 

Now apologise and go to the back of the class. And apologise for your previous offensive post (which I've reported by the way).

[StreetCowboy]

14 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

From the article:

 

"Over the period, there were 220 instances in which an economy grew in one year before shrinking in the next. In its April forecasts the IMF never once foresaw the contraction looming in the next year. Even in October of the year in question, the IMF predicted that a recession had begun only half the time. To be fair, an average-growth prediction also misses 100% of recessions. One model does better, though. Our random-number generator correctly forecast the start of a recession 18% of the time."

 

If you are able to read the above, you will see that the IMF's best result for one particular month was 50% accuracy, and it's worst result was 0% accuracy for another particular month. The random number generator's accuracy was 18%. In what universe does 0% accuracy beat 18% accuracy?.

 

Now apologise and go to the back of the class. And apologise for your previous offensive post (which I've reported by the way).

If you're specifically looking for an economic model for identifying turning points, then none of those referenced were any good.  If you are looking for an economic model to predict the level of growth in the following year (the principal criterion for the test, and the criterion on which the graphs were based) then the random number generated was the worst.

 

However, the particular question, how to estimate the effect of a never-before-attempted leap into the dark, is particularly challenging, and would probably require a specific model.  However, as far as I have heard, none of the models used have predicted a short term benefit.  Like medicine.  Sometimes the best medicine tastes nasty.  But just because it tastes nasty, doesn't mean its good medicine.  Short-term pain does not necessarily mean long term gain, and could just be the start of long term pain.  

 

I don't have the compu-graphic skills to back up my imagination, so you'll need to imagine "Brexit" written with a skull and crossbones for the x.

[simoh1490]

27 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

From the article:

 

"Over the period, there were 220 instances in which an economy grew in one year before shrinking in the next. In its April forecasts the IMF never once foresaw the contraction looming in the next year. Even in October of the year in question, the IMF predicted that a recession had begun only half the time. To be fair, an average-growth prediction also misses 100% of recessions. One model does better, though. Our random-number generator correctly forecast the start of a recession 18% of the time."

 

If you are able to read the above, you will see that the IMF's best result for one particular month was 50% accuracy, and it's worst result was 0% accuracy for another particular month. The random number generator's accuracy was 18%. In what universe does 0% accuracy beat 18% accuracy?.

 

Now apologise and go to the back of the class. And apologise for your previous offensive post (which I've reported by the way).

You simply don't understand what you're reading but you're not man enough to admit it. And actually, this debate is no longer a debate, it's all about you trying to save face and how right you always are, you're never ever going to be wrong.....sad beyond words.

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

From the article:

 

"Over the period, there were 220 instances in which an economy grew in one year before shrinking in the next. In its April forecasts the IMF never once foresaw the contraction looming in the next year. Even in October of the year in question, the IMF predicted that a recession had begun only half the time. To be fair, an average-growth prediction also misses 100% of recessions. One model does better, though. Our random-number generator correctly forecast the start of a recession 18% of the time."

 

If you are able to read the above, you will see that the IMF's best result for one particular month was 50% accuracy, and it's worst result was 0% accuracy for another particular month. The random number generator's accuracy was 18%. In what universe does 0% accuracy beat 18% accuracy?.

 

Now apologise and go to the back of the class. And apologise for your previous offensive post (which I've reported by the way).

 

Are you for real?  I presume it was not your intention to display to all that you missed the entire premise of the article and also took the joking final statement as being something more than a little lighthearted comment on the inability to predict recessions!

[Khun Han]

Oh well! you you are proven wro

 

21 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

You simply don't understand what you're reading but you're not man enough to admit it. And actually, this debate is no longer a debate, it's all about you trying to save face and how right you always are, you're never ever going to be wrong.....sad beyond words.

 

I know this is going to evoke one of your playground-type 'you said I said' responses, but you are describing yourself to a T  in the above quote.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Khun Han

[Khun Han]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Are you for real?  I presume it was not your intention to display to all that you missed the entire premise of the article and also took the joking final statement as being something more than a little lighthearted comment on the inability to predict recessions!

 

You stated:

 

"you stated that the random number generator beat the economists when in the article it states the opposite"

 

I pointed out that you are wrong. And now you are trying to wriggle out of the above.

 

Yes, the point about the random number generator was meant to be humorous, but it was also meant to underline the theme of the article about economists often being wildly inacurate with their predictions (that's why it's the last sentence in the article). A theme which yourself and, more particularly, simoh1490 have attempted to turn on it's head.

[StreetCowboy]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You stated:

 

"you stated that the random number generator beat the economists when in the article it states the opposite"

 

I pointed out that you are wrong. And now you are trying to wriggle out of the above.

 

Yes, the point about the random number generator was meant to be humorous, but it was also meant to underline the theme of the article about economists often being wildly inacurate with their predictions (that's why it's the last sentence in the article). A theme which yourself and, more particularly, simoh1490 have attempted to turn on it's head.

Read the article again, very carefully.  If you have to, trace the words with your finger, and sound the words out.  Or read my brief summary of the key points, above, based on the graphs in the article.

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Read the article again, very carefully.  If you have to, trace the words with your finger, and sound the words out.  Or read my brief summary of the key points, above, based on the graphs in the article.

 

This is getting beyond silly. In my post which linked the relevant article, I ran with the humorous fact that the random number generator beat the IMF's prediction. It might not beat it all the time, but beat it, it indeed did, as stated at the end of the article.

 

Your brief summary jumps from a point at the start of the article to a different point at the end of the article, and tries to use the first point to try to contradict the different last point. I would suggest that I'm not the one who needs to do the finger-tracing and word-sounding. Though I do admire the eloquent way you present your bad logic. It adds a touch of pseudo-class to the discussion.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Khun Han

[Rimmer]

A flame has been removed

[simoh1490]

11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

This is getting beyond silly. In my post which linked the relevant article, I ran with the humorous fact that the random number generator beat the IMF's prediction. It might not beat it all the time, but beat it, it indeed did, as stated at the end of the article.

 

Your brief summary jumps from a point at the start of the article to a different point at the end of the article, and tries to use the first point to try to contradict the different last point. I would suggest that I'm not the one who needs to do the finger-tracing and word-sounding. Though I do admire the eloquent way you present your bad logic. It adds a touch of pseudo-class to the discussion.

Ah screw it, it's not worth it. There's no debate to be had on Brexit here, move along.

Edited March 16, 2018 by simoh1490

[Khun Han]

Just now, simoh1490 said:

Here's a clue....the random number generator only had to deal with the range of -10 to +2, thirteen digits, that means the chances of it being right were 12 to 1. Are you starting to get it finally!

 

Whereas the economic forecasters deal in known existing quantities and previous trends, something the random number indicator is unable to do. But I doubt you'll ever get it.

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And tge rest of her cabinet keenly seeking EU support?

I think you misunderstand what leaving the EU means. It doesn't mean cutting off all diplomatic ties with the EU or it's member states.