Post Brexit forecast... How can we trust what experts say?

[mummmy2017]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3902630/amp/Why-does-Bank-boss-Mark-Carney-getting-wrong.html

This guy got it wrong last time, how can we trust what he says?

[Bearbehind]

He didn’t get it wrong last time - it’s just Leavers has been conditioned to believe the impact of the result would be felt the day after the referendum.

It doesnt take a genius to work out the serious effects won’t occur until after we’ve left.

Glad you are starting to question things a bit more though mummmy

[1tisILeClerc]

If you look at the way the value and relationships between currencies jump about continually it is very difficult to make a totally reliable prediction.Mrs Mays speech in Salzburg made the exchange rate jump by nearly 1% on the half hour surrounding her speech. Incidents such as the air strikes in Syria and other places also need to be factored in.
In the world of high finance nothing stands still.

[1tisILeClerc]

Boris wants to build a big bridge from NI to Scotland.
That's the nearest I have seen to a plan.

[prettybird]

I think it was James O'Brian on LBC today (might have been one of his callers/guests) who pointed out that Mark Carney's job is to mitigate and/or avert his own worst predictions

So, for example, people forget the actions he took post the Brexit vote of implementing quantitative easing (the modern form of printing money) to smooth the shock and reduce the impact on the economy.

[bellinisurge]

He didn't get it wrong. Do you think you could doa better job? Maybe all those people who bail out when the going gets tough they could do it: Davies, Johnson and Raab?

[ShovingLeopard]

You do realise the Mail is incredibly biased in favour of Brexit, and will therefore spin anything Carney says about risks in favour of that agenda?

[MarshaBradyo]

It’s a worst case scenario not a prediction

Listen to him on R4 today. It’s what he needs to do as part of his job

[lonelyplanetmum]

I thought he was tactful, measured, honest and patient on Radio 4 explaining it's his job to try and plan and prepare for what Parliament choose.

Very honourable of him to have extended his term until the end of January 2020. He must privately think what a crazy act of self harm.

[SchnitzelVonKrumm]

I imagine Carney's memoirs will be, um, entertaining.

[Pebblesandfriends]

It's a worst case scenario, but I see no reason not to trust it. It shouldn't be a shock though, I don't know anyone who seriously thought we'd be better off leaving.

[MeganBacon]

It's all assumptions based and best estimates, as much an art as a science. He never uses definite language even if it is reported that way in the press, he talks of "a range of possible outcomes". It is normally the worst possible outcome reported in headlines but his actual language is probably more measured than that.

[1tisILeClerc]

Even if all these forecasts were 80% wrong, NONE say things are going to be better than we were.

[Bearbehind]

megan can you point us in the direction of a single reoprt which shows how Brexit will benefit us?

[Bearbehind]

I’m really pleased mummmy has started this thread.

She’s been one of the most die hard, at any price, Leavers on here and she’s cleary rattled enough to be questioning this.

It’s starting to sink in.

Let’s hope it’s not too late.

[MeganBacon]

@Bear
I'm pretty sure none of the more credible reports model a positive outcome. The point I was making is that we cannot dismiss what has already happened on the basis that it wasn't the worst possible outcome, because what we have is probably within Carney's range of possible outcomes.

[lonelyplanetmum]

I'd rather trust most specialists with years of experience and knowledge of their sector.

By contrast nearly all of our alleged states persons, are not to be trusted, especially the Leave crew I'm afraid.

Here's my trust ratings:

Johnson (B) 0 out of 10
Rees Mogg 0 out of 10
Gove 0 out of 10
Farage 0 out of 10

I'd give Carney a 10, compared to that shower.

[DoctorTwo]

I see Grease Smug, the man who moved his hedge fund to Ireland to escape the effects of Brexit, has labelled Carnage a 'second rate politician' when in fact he was a Canadian civil servant. Why JRM and his cronies aren't being skewered by the BBC is beyond me. Oh wait, they're the media wing of the Tory party.

[Mistigri]

he talks of "a range of possible outcomes". It is normally the worst possible outcome reported in headlines but his actual language is probably more measured than that.

It is true that newspapers tend to latch onto the most dramatic predictions.

But I don't think that any forecasters have predicted the "worst possible outcome" because that's not how you do forecasting (disclosure: I'm a forecaster).

For any set of assumptions there is a range of possible outcomes, because some things are hard to predict (eg human behaviour) and because how the economy behaves depends on many things other than Brexit that the UK has no control over (eg Trump picking trade fights with China). Forecasters tend to "train" their models so as not to produce extreme outcomes, because most of the time economies change only very slowly. However, sometimes an extreme outcome IS what actually happens. This is why most economists didn't predict the 2007 financial crisis: forecasters don't like going out on a limb because most of the time if you do this you'll be wrong. But that doesn't mean that extreme negative outcomes are impossible.

So, forecasters may well be overestimating how bad the impacts might be - let's hope so - but they may also be underestimating how bad things could be.

[Talkinpeece]

(a) The Daily Mail is now pro remain
(b) Carney has not got it wrong - he has made assessments that are so far coming true
(c) Still waiting for any properly costed assessments of how Brexit will make anything better

[ShovingLeopard]

Spot on Mistigri

I had no idea the Mail was now pro-remain, Talkin. I don't very often read it. What a colossal cheek, given how their relentless blaming of the EU for every ill (whether related to the EU or not) for the past four decades played such a large part in the masses blindly voting for Brexit.

[mummmy2017]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6444811/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-12th-day-Brexit-Theresa-gave-start-World-War-III.html
Sorry Bear... This is more my feelings on it all...

[Leonie87]

I think I might have a bit of a crush on Mark Carney.

[nuttynutjob]

I trust Mark Carney more than Bojo, Gove, Fox and Rees Mogg

[jm90914]

@mummy

Experts get things wrong. There's no expert academy where you're issued with a certificate and crystal ball that you can use to gaze into the future.

The world isn't black and white, like that. It's shades of grey.

Look, you're right to be sceptical about anything anyone says. Information has to be evaluated for trustworthiness, whether it's in favour of your opinion or not.

But, have you honestly looked at Carney's history? Or have you reached a snap judgement on him based on one thing, and one source?

As it happens, he is 53 years old, and has done a lot in his career. His actions as the Governor of the Bank of Canada were hugely beneficial in helping the country through the financial crisis. It's not like he has no track record, expertise, or history of good judgement.

Are the sources of information completely trustworthy on the hard Brexit side of the argument? Of course not.

For example, we all know that Jacob Rees Mogg, on one hand, publicly states that there will be no economic hardships to bear due to a hard Brexit.

At the same time, his own investment company sets up a hedge fund in Ireland and pitches that fund to its clients because of the "risks of a hard Brexit".

In light of that, how trustworthy are his words?

Nigel Farage, before the referendum, said that a close result in favour of remain would mean a second referendum would be possible.

We had a close result, and he now says it's a failure of democracy to have the second referendum that he previously wanted.

Should those contradictions weigh on how trustworthy we find his information?

There are countless examples of these kinds of hypocrisies.

Nobody is asking you to 100% trust any source of information. All you can do is gather the facts, evaluate the sources, and come to a unemotional conclusion.

But don't fall into the trap of glancing at the Daily Mail, and using that as your soul source of information about a person.

If I spoke to your worst enemy, and formed my opinion of you solely based on what they said, would I get true picture of the real you?