Almost There! Hexus EU Referendum Straw Poll #2

[big_hairy_rob]

Financial forecasts, like most forecasts, are based on mathematical models, in the case of financial forecasts the mathematics is based on historic statistics.

A very simple way of looking at it is, for example, if you have enough data points on what happens to X when Y goes up by 1% you can make start to make predictions of what's going to happen to X in the future if Y changes, obviously a countries economy is far more complicated than that but (afaik) that's the basic principal.

I understand that (and basic statistics), but what historic models exist for a situation that has never occurred? If there are no data points (as I believe that there aren't in this case) then how can you say with any reasonable sense of certainty that any theory or prediction is correct?

[opel80uk]

In all honesty I cannot remember the precise details, i.e. which figures, were I discussed amongst a great many other things about the referendum in a long conversation several weeks ago. However, I do remember that this person who is (a) a respected economist in the civil service, (b) trustworthy (c) a stickler for accuracy and (d) voting remain was decidedly irked by the fact that they were stretching the boundaries of possibility to make their point.

The details on this actually do matter though, and the reason being is because I've heard, here and elsewhere, the notion that both sides are equally culpable with regards to their dishonesty, and IMO, I think that's rubbish. In fact, the Remain camp have been so impotent in getting any kind of message across they have enabled the Brexit side to peddle swathes of misinformation. Regardless, the 6% used by the Government to work out the 4300 hit to households is not 'worst case scenario' or 'breaking point maths', unless one is off the opinion that all the economists who came to roughly the same conclusions are also using the same tactics, but it is rather the general consensus. The real 'worse case scenario' is far worse.

[big_hairy_rob]

[citation needed]?

Whilst undoubtedly economists have been wrong in the past, I'd be amazed if you could cite an example where an overwhelming majority of economists agreed on a likely trajectory that turned out to be completely wrong. In fact, I'd be amazed if there was any economic inflection point that received the breadth and depth of attention that Brexit has - it's very rare for people to be aware of these kind of inflection points so far in advance - they generally come as a response to a sudden change. So it's been an unusual opportunity for economists to model the outcomes of a major economic change well in advance of that change.

Let's be clear - I completely accept that the forecasts could be wrong. No question. Then again, If I blindfolded myself and then biked down Mottram Hill I might not crash into anything. But there's no way I can know the outcome. So if I have 9 friends who tell me that I'm likely to do varying amounts of damage to myself and my bike, and one friend who tells me I'll be absolutely fine and get cookies at the end, who should I listen to?

All forecasts can be wrong. That doesn't mean you should just ignore all forecasts, particularly if the vast majority of them point to similar outcomes.

"Studies reveal the inability of forecasters to correctly or timeously predict outcomes. Based on a sample of 63 industrial and developing countries, a study by Prakash Loungani at the International Monetary Fund is revealing. It showed that private sector forecasters were only able to predict two of the 60 recessions that occurred over the sample while the majority remained undetected."
http://theconversation.com/economic-...en-wrong-53829

I can find others later if you want, though the housing market crash in America (Sub-Prime) and the crashes in Spain, France and Greece are other good examples

I agree that we shouldn't ignore the forecasts, but neither should be believe them on principle. Intelligence is after all the ability to consider all the facts before reasoning on a course of action, but if the information to hand is unsubstantiated then it becomes a far harder decisions. However historically it's the people acting against the majority who have caused change, and isn't it change that people want? If you really want ride your bike then the 9 people aren't going to stop you from doing it (if you want to), but they may have a side effect to make you consider about using additional protection just in case.

Just bear in mind that the Government and Bank of England are those most wielding these economic predictions and it's not like they've ever lied to us, or got it horrendously wrong...

[wazzickle]

There are lots of things that can't be quantified, but lots of things that can, e.g. renegotiating trade deals. Sometimes these are very simple and only take a year, some are still 20 years into the process with no sign of coming to fruition. We can certainly say 'on average', and 'under the assumption we want to get it done straight away', how long each trade deal can expect to take.

Predictions are always just that, and must be taken with a pinch of salt. Don't expect them to be 100% accurate - sometimes they can't be accurate, if you have discrete possibilities, the average will be one that by definition falls in-between. The fact is, the best guess of the experts is the best guess available to us, and as adults, we should be capable of making decisions based on incomplete information.

[wazzickle]

Pretty sure I saw in a film somewhere that there were people who predicted the housing market crash

[Corky34]

I understand that (and basic statistics), but what historic models exist for a situation that has never occurred? If there are no data points (as I believe that there aren't in this case) then how can you say with any reasonable sense of certainty that any theory or prediction is correct?

Because the historic models do exist, yes the situation has never occurred but each individual statistic has and those are the numbers that go into your model, it's like forecasting the weather, today (the situation) has never existed before, at least not exactly, but based on what we know about past events we can make a prediction of what's going to happen tomorrow.

[snedger]

Oxygen magnesium! My head is feeling wrong.
Thought the answer might be WWSD (what would Stella do), but a pint has not helped.
Now on the bus to home/polling station, thinking - maybe I should ask my grown up sons how they would vote, it's more their future than mine, but if they differ, then I would probably have to abstain.
Just realised that no matter what the result, I feel that the UK can work with whatever outcome.
If there was a way I could randomly cast a vote then I would do it.
I am not going to not vote, but in just 10 minutes away I have no clue as to which way I will go.
ARGGGGH!

[scaryjim]

"Studies reveal the inability of forecasters to correctly or timeously predict outcomes. Based on a sample of 63 industrial and developing countries, a study by Prakash Loungani at the International Monetary Fund is revealing. It showed that private sector forecasters were only able to predict two of the 60 recessions that occurred over the sample while the majority remained undetected."
http://theconversation.com/economic-...en-wrong-53829 ...

Did you read the whole of that paper? I like this one:

... while forecasters do recognize recessions in the year in which they occur, the results in the second row show that the magnitude of the downturn was almost always underpredicted.

So, to support your claim that you can't trust forecasts, you produce a paper that states that forecasts usually underpredict recessions. In other words, we should be assuming that the forecasts presented will actually under-predict the recession.

Only, a) that paper only looked at predicting recessions, not general economic forecasting, and b) it's 20 years out of date, and I'd hope we've made some improvements to forecasting since then. Either way, that paper clearly states that forecasts tend to be optimistic, which means when you're presented with a lot of forecasts that all say you're going to have a recession, you should be very concerned (you'll notice that the examples you can think of are instances where a recession was not forecast when it should be).

[snedger]

Didn't go down too well at the polling station when I asked for a dart to cast my vote.
As I walked out the enormity of what I might be causing hit me so hard, took a few minutes to gather my emotions.
The raw cowardly feeling that I have now is that I hope the result goes against my choice.
What the fade have I done?

[Corky34]

So if there's a single vote in it we know who to blame.

How ever it turns out though one things for certain, it's a win-win for the Conservatives.
Remain and they lance that Eurosceptic boil that's been threatening to split their party in two, Leave and they get to reshape the UK in their own image.

[wazzickle]

Yeah Corbyn's in kinda a lose-lose spot. Only politician to come out of this with any credit whatsoever in my book is Sadiq Khan. Rest can go retire somewhere in anonymity - as a friend of mine put it, a lot of people seem to be making their mind up according to whom they hate the least. That's no way to run democracy. This referendum has brought out the worst in people, including me.

[wazzickle]

Brilliant!

Unlike everyone else, who seemingly overnight has become a champion of European legislation and a bastion of the legalities of immigration, I genuinely know #### all about politics.

Honestly. Can't even tell you the difference between labour, conservatives or the other ones. Is it Lib dems? I don't know what they do. Tories are ##### though... That's literally the extent of my knowledge.

It just doesn't interest me because, and I'm aware that this is painfully apathetic and stupid, but it's boring and I don't see how any of it's actually set up to help me. If I was a bank or building society or a business that operated on the global market or just a #### who went to Eton and fancied making all my pig diddling mates peers or something then yeah, I'd give more of a ####. But I'm not. I'm just a bloke who works in a call centre 8 hours a day and whether we're in or out of Europe I'll still have £68 pound a month to pay for bus fares. I'm trapped in renting so I couldn't give less of a #### about "community" because I'm not really part of one because I might move again in 6 month so what's point? I'll still be skint either way, the concept of owning a house will remain a sick joke and I'll still have to work until I'm a billion and 30 just to retire on the £8.47 I've got saved up in my work pension (yes I'm aware all of these are political points... Irony's funny, isn't it?) but governments aren't set up for people like me... They're set up for people who are either tragically, tragically poor or people who are almost belligerently rich. Even if we save money by coming out, who gives a ####? What, we're suddenly going to start looking after old folk and buying hospitals are we? Wont we need the four food banks in Leeds anymore? You talk actual piss. Any money saved will go into buying more pigs or moats for duck houses.

The point for me is this though; A university professor of 12 years, what has got an actual PhD, specialising in European constitutional law and the relationship between the EU and its member states, specifically the UK, the single market and the free movement of people has said its a ####ing #### idea to leave the EU.

Surely that's enough then? Let's agree with him, surely? He probably knows what's chong and what's not chong.

I mean I know you've got a BTEC in sports science and, yeah... sure, your lass has got her level 1 hairdressing certificate and you both went to Tossa De Mar once for holiday but his points seem to come across better than yours somehow. Like, his arguments are built around solid premises and formulated on numbers and research and #### whereas yours are like "Yeah well The Sun says all black people are ######s, so...".

The best way I can think of it is in terms of the biscuit club at work. Everybody pays in and everybody gets nice biscuits. Sure you can get your own biscuits if you want but it's a lot of ####ing about and you'll only have to share them anyway. What, are you gonna legitimately eat them all to yourself in an office are you Sharon? Right well that's why you wear sports socks and can't find a husband. Yeah, not everyone gets the biscuits they want all the time but if your choice is #### biscuits sometimes or no biscuits ever then it's a ####ing no brainer. What if you want help to get biscuits but nobody cares because they're sorted for Jaffas now? What about your relationship with people who are still in biscuit club? You think they'll be happy with you tapping Hob Nobs off them everyday because you forgot to go to Jacksons at the weekend? Get to ####. "Oh no, loads of new people want to join in with biscuit club now!" So? More people means more / better biscuits. Yeah you might have to share more but what are you, 5? If you don't want to share biscuits then #### off back to Russia you pinko commie swine. Plus, why do you think they WANT to join? It's because these biscuits are brilliant and they haven't got any. Sometimes people do Ramadan and can't eat biscuits while the suns up... Who gives a ####? Don't have biscuits then. It's ok... Just have them later. Take them home for when suns gone down for all I care. And yeah, some people try and blag it... They don't pay what they should or they eat more than you but you don't just #### biscuits off all together because of a couple of dickheads. Grow up you babies. "He hasn't paid for biscuits and by rights he's eating my property!". Yeah... Jason's not paying this week because he's got dick cancer and he's got better things to worry about. Let him have a biscuit you tight bastard. #### me. Plus his wife's got alopecia. Difficult home life mate. Give him a biscuit while he sorts his head out.

I'm just gonna go with the PhD bloke to be honest because he's smarter than everyone else and I ####ing love biscuits me.

‪#‎BiscuitClub‬

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Might need to star out some of those words though.

But that was a highly original way of describing things!

[TeePee]

A little over 10% of the votes counted, and it's Remain by a hair. Leave was leading a minute ago. It's still too close to call at this point. Who's staying up and watching?

[TeePee]

And Leave is back in the lead. 2000 votes in it with a little over 6M votes counted so far.

[TeePee]

Liverpool pulls it back for Remain. This is so incredibly close. Great to see the high turnout as well!