All this stems from the near-childish beliefs that 'models' are actual predictions of the future, that 'the computer is always right', and that one can 'nudge' people into behaviours to mirror the models' 'best outcome'. The covid years ought to have shown us by now that politicians are irredeemably scientifically illiterate and innumerate. Moreover, they rely on their 'assistants', be they SpAds or Mandarins, but don't think for themselves, never mind think critically. And why should they when they have a propaganda machine at their fingertips.
And so, expect the worst for the economy because the effects of the Lockdown years have been forgotten by our ludicrous politicians.
To play Devil's advocate, they will probably say they are swamped by a sea of data all the time and therefore have to rely on SpAds and Mandarins (and models). The problem is that we are in the position in the first place - which stems from the idea that the state is in charge of everything...
Just so! Add to this the magical belief that the more data you can have the better you can 'predict' an outcome - as if people are defined by numbers and parameters which only need fine-tuning by politicians and their helpers to 'make the world a better place' ... if only people weren't so stubborn and pigheaded,w anting to live their own lives the way they desire ...
There's a wonderful Dylan song on the Basement Tapes (still one of my favourite Dylan albums, as it sees him delving deep into the history of American roots popular music. Backed by The Band this is music for all times
One song is called "Too much of nothing" ... with this line "when there's too much of nothing, no-one has control". Nor when there's too much data as well ... not to mention that
"But when there’s too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean"
How long has Reeves got? Is she just a shield used by her ballless boss, to fend off the brickbats? How is it possible for us to have got so ****ed in such a ****ing short time? When do we start hunting down Labour voters? Still to meet ANYONE who has confessed to have done so
Excellent piece. If only modern politicians would read it. How do they think politicians of yesteryear managed without the OBR, measures of money supply, inflation, etc? They had the one thing modern politicians lack - commonsense.
It reminds me of John Cowperthwaite's insistence on not measuring GDP in Hong Kong, knowing that by measuring it the government of the city would lose sight of what actually matters.
Yes - modern politicians are obsessed with numbers generated by economists with computer models generating ever more obscure variables far into the future - when they cannot even get it right six months ahead. Just speaking as an economist ...
Actually even in the narrow scope of what Rachel and her OBR are attempting to control, they really don't understand how it works. All their equations and computer modelling are hopelessly bad at predicting economic outcomes. That is partly because they can't predict future events, as you say, but also partly because they actually don't understand how the economy works.
Even their very act of predicting the economic future itself affects that future by changing people's behaviour.
Their awarding of "fiscal headroom" to themselves when they are running a historically huge deficit is laughable. In fact that phrase "fiscal headroom" is right up there with "kick-starting growth" in the pantheon of self-delusion of our political class!
JD Vance expressed it best: they have IQ's of 110 but think they have IQ's of 150.
Apart from overstated IQ being the cause, I completely agree. High academic achievers consider themselves intelligent, but if the academy is compromised, that achievement means nothing except that the students in question were compliant with the prevailing ideology. Labour's front bench is opposed to national interest in principle, but needs to please its social media followers by talking up growth, as the basis of pay rises for the public sector.
"It would normally be a sign of incipient mental disorder for a person to use the past tense to describe something that is supposed to happen in two-three years’ time".
Good diagnosis! Showing how a certain type of mentality remains the same down the years, here is one they made earlier:
"Only the future is certain. The past is always changing".
- Paul Flynn, Labour Member of Parliament for Newport West in South Wales, talking about Tony Blair's Government.
All the media seem to use the present tense when reporting past events. It can become tedious and very confusing. Is it a tick or a fashion or is there some motive I have not been able to identify. Perhaps it is a part of their War On The Past.
Experts on English style call it “the historic present”; it’s supposed to be more immediate and dramatic. But it has to be handled carefully, and especially not mixed with the past tense.
I believe that the nature of politics has changed, over how long is a separate lengthy debate.
Modern politics is truly a game, using the ecological as a source of game tokens. To the point that the 'ecological' is no longer important in the game of politics except as a scoring mechanism. That Rachel from Accounts chooses which game tokens she plays to enhance her 'position' has nothing to do with real life, or 'events'.
Now replicate this thought over other Cabinet members, it could explain a lot. Net Zero is a big stack of tokens that may actually be worthless. Illegal immigration control tokens are near worthless in the political game. Selling off the Chagos Archipelago merely cashing in a few tokens. And over it all Two Tier presides as a croupier with a green eye shade and arm bands on his sleeves, thankful that he can pretend to be above the game.
I see Starmer less as the croupier of the game, more like the first time visitor to Vegas who has put money embezzled from his employer on the blackjack table. Have you noticed how unconfident he looks when giving speeches?
I watched the TV news last night covering Reeves' 'strategy' with dread. I appreciate she thinks her job is to remain upbeat and build confidence, but it just sounds like hubris. UK trade is suffering from the divorce with the EU, while the USA is full throttle for isolation. Trump's 25% tariff on car imports could devastate what remains of British vehicle manufacturing.
At the same time, Labour is cutting welfare spending and allowing 'assisted dying' legislation to pass through Parliament. Starmer's government could be considered one of those unforseen disasters that the article alludes to, killing far more people than Vegas tigers ever did.
I think probably she's taken to heart the criticism that in the early months she and Starmer were too downbeat. Now she's erring in the other direction?
We have a cadre of highly educated fools who mistake the model for physical reality. This type of groupthink is why the practice of politics in this country has shrivelled to mere accountancy. Great damage has been done to our culture, and to the human spirit, by people who are unable to engage with life through anything other than an economic lens.
Bret Weinstein has a good angle on this. It is that a complex system can not be understood or managed using complicated tools. Complex systems have unknowable variables, complicated tools may seem impressive but are orders of magnitude away from predicting Complexity.
Given the OBR has already 'remodelled' the failed predictions it made last October I don't really hold out much hope for the latest ones. It's just another ALB that wilfully misrepresents lack of accountability as 'independence'. At least the Lord Chancellor had the gumption to take on her equivalent; unsuccessfully it appears. Reeves seems to have little wish to do anything other than make the OBR happy.
Most ironic how Nassim Taleb failed to see the greatest ‘Black Swan’ of recent years, namely the Covid scamdemic. Similar to Naomi Klein, author of the ‘Shock Doctrine,’ failing to see through the same shocking nonsense.
Yeah, crazy. I’ve never been able to look at that man the same way again. It’s bizarre that somebody could lay out the perfect case in advance as to why lockdowns were a foolish idea and then….support lockdowns.
So much here, David, that I don't know where to begin. Analogically, you've taken down a whole perceptive framework that oversees popular thinking today. Everything is a game, from evolutionary biology to human relations, to politics, to quantum theory, to economics. The illusion of control and choice in all matters is an especial affliction of the wealthy who experience a world of deference and variety of material choice. I love your examples, especially the casino. It captures the phenomenon perfectly. The lockdowns, however, don't quit fit because the matters you mention had been accounted for, and formed part of the conventional response to a pandemic, as per the Great Barrington Declaration. There truly were no excuses for that.
Thanks, Asa. I get what you mean about lockdowns - but the point is that for all that the Great Barrington Declaration was common sense, it was impossible for our politicians to see it that way. The GBD took an ecological approach to risk. The lockdowns were a ludic response.
This is so true—and kind of depressing. I don’t remember when it hit me, but at some point, I realized we’re living a centrally planned planned country....not too far from the Soviets, and it’ll keep going… until one day, it won’t.
Predictions only matter if you compare what you thought would happen with what actually happened. The difference between the two? That’s how far you are from reality. The MSM tends to focus on two things: either what's happening right now or some forecasted future that they hope will happen. The problem? No one actually goes back to check if those predictions were right.
All this stems from the near-childish beliefs that 'models' are actual predictions of the future, that 'the computer is always right', and that one can 'nudge' people into behaviours to mirror the models' 'best outcome'. The covid years ought to have shown us by now that politicians are irredeemably scientifically illiterate and innumerate. Moreover, they rely on their 'assistants', be they SpAds or Mandarins, but don't think for themselves, never mind think critically. And why should they when they have a propaganda machine at their fingertips.
And so, expect the worst for the economy because the effects of the Lockdown years have been forgotten by our ludicrous politicians.
To play Devil's advocate, they will probably say they are swamped by a sea of data all the time and therefore have to rely on SpAds and Mandarins (and models). The problem is that we are in the position in the first place - which stems from the idea that the state is in charge of everything...
Just so! Add to this the magical belief that the more data you can have the better you can 'predict' an outcome - as if people are defined by numbers and parameters which only need fine-tuning by politicians and their helpers to 'make the world a better place' ... if only people weren't so stubborn and pigheaded,w anting to live their own lives the way they desire ...
There's a wonderful Dylan song on the Basement Tapes (still one of my favourite Dylan albums, as it sees him delving deep into the history of American roots popular music. Backed by The Band this is music for all times
One song is called "Too much of nothing" ... with this line "when there's too much of nothing, no-one has control". Nor when there's too much data as well ... not to mention that
"But when there’s too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean"
How long has Reeves got? Is she just a shield used by her ballless boss, to fend off the brickbats? How is it possible for us to have got so ****ed in such a ****ing short time? When do we start hunting down Labour voters? Still to meet ANYONE who has confessed to have done so
More important, utterly illiterate on the matter of human nature. Us, the proles, simply ignore them. Let them blabber at each other.
Rachel from accounts needs to dust off her Ladybird Book of Kings and remind herself of Canute's lesson: power over people doesn't = power over nature
Excellent piece. If only modern politicians would read it. How do they think politicians of yesteryear managed without the OBR, measures of money supply, inflation, etc? They had the one thing modern politicians lack - commonsense.
It reminds me of John Cowperthwaite's insistence on not measuring GDP in Hong Kong, knowing that by measuring it the government of the city would lose sight of what actually matters.
Yes - modern politicians are obsessed with numbers generated by economists with computer models generating ever more obscure variables far into the future - when they cannot even get it right six months ahead. Just speaking as an economist ...
Nailed it again, David.
Actually even in the narrow scope of what Rachel and her OBR are attempting to control, they really don't understand how it works. All their equations and computer modelling are hopelessly bad at predicting economic outcomes. That is partly because they can't predict future events, as you say, but also partly because they actually don't understand how the economy works.
Even their very act of predicting the economic future itself affects that future by changing people's behaviour.
Their awarding of "fiscal headroom" to themselves when they are running a historically huge deficit is laughable. In fact that phrase "fiscal headroom" is right up there with "kick-starting growth" in the pantheon of self-delusion of our political class!
JD Vance expressed it best: they have IQ's of 110 but think they have IQ's of 150.
Apart from overstated IQ being the cause, I completely agree. High academic achievers consider themselves intelligent, but if the academy is compromised, that achievement means nothing except that the students in question were compliant with the prevailing ideology. Labour's front bench is opposed to national interest in principle, but needs to please its social media followers by talking up growth, as the basis of pay rises for the public sector.
unfortunately JD Vance, with his background in- and financial backing by US tech moghuls is not a friend.
"It would normally be a sign of incipient mental disorder for a person to use the past tense to describe something that is supposed to happen in two-three years’ time".
Good diagnosis! Showing how a certain type of mentality remains the same down the years, here is one they made earlier:
"Only the future is certain. The past is always changing".
- Paul Flynn, Labour Member of Parliament for Newport West in South Wales, talking about Tony Blair's Government.
All the media seem to use the present tense when reporting past events. It can become tedious and very confusing. Is it a tick or a fashion or is there some motive I have not been able to identify. Perhaps it is a part of their War On The Past.
Experts on English style call it “the historic present”; it’s supposed to be more immediate and dramatic. But it has to be handled carefully, and especially not mixed with the past tense.
I believe that the nature of politics has changed, over how long is a separate lengthy debate.
Modern politics is truly a game, using the ecological as a source of game tokens. To the point that the 'ecological' is no longer important in the game of politics except as a scoring mechanism. That Rachel from Accounts chooses which game tokens she plays to enhance her 'position' has nothing to do with real life, or 'events'.
Now replicate this thought over other Cabinet members, it could explain a lot. Net Zero is a big stack of tokens that may actually be worthless. Illegal immigration control tokens are near worthless in the political game. Selling off the Chagos Archipelago merely cashing in a few tokens. And over it all Two Tier presides as a croupier with a green eye shade and arm bands on his sleeves, thankful that he can pretend to be above the game.
I see Starmer less as the croupier of the game, more like the first time visitor to Vegas who has put money embezzled from his employer on the blackjack table. Have you noticed how unconfident he looks when giving speeches?
Yes, my impression is that he always looks uncomfortable in his own skin, not just when making speeches. He never ever looks relaxed.
Rachel's budget yesterday reminded me a kid with a nice picture they'd made, 'that's nice, shall we put it on the fridge...'
I watched the TV news last night covering Reeves' 'strategy' with dread. I appreciate she thinks her job is to remain upbeat and build confidence, but it just sounds like hubris. UK trade is suffering from the divorce with the EU, while the USA is full throttle for isolation. Trump's 25% tariff on car imports could devastate what remains of British vehicle manufacturing.
At the same time, Labour is cutting welfare spending and allowing 'assisted dying' legislation to pass through Parliament. Starmer's government could be considered one of those unforseen disasters that the article alludes to, killing far more people than Vegas tigers ever did.
I think probably she's taken to heart the criticism that in the early months she and Starmer were too downbeat. Now she's erring in the other direction?
We have a cadre of highly educated fools who mistake the model for physical reality. This type of groupthink is why the practice of politics in this country has shrivelled to mere accountancy. Great damage has been done to our culture, and to the human spirit, by people who are unable to engage with life through anything other than an economic lens.
Bret Weinstein has a good angle on this. It is that a complex system can not be understood or managed using complicated tools. Complex systems have unknowable variables, complicated tools may seem impressive but are orders of magnitude away from predicting Complexity.
"nobody really knows what the future"
Yes, but they know it perfectly well.
One of your very best, David. (I doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a reader alas.)
Given the OBR has already 'remodelled' the failed predictions it made last October I don't really hold out much hope for the latest ones. It's just another ALB that wilfully misrepresents lack of accountability as 'independence'. At least the Lord Chancellor had the gumption to take on her equivalent; unsuccessfully it appears. Reeves seems to have little wish to do anything other than make the OBR happy.
Yeah, I think Reeves is basically insecure and in awe of what she thinks of as ‘real’ economists.
Most ironic how Nassim Taleb failed to see the greatest ‘Black Swan’ of recent years, namely the Covid scamdemic. Similar to Naomi Klein, author of the ‘Shock Doctrine,’ failing to see through the same shocking nonsense.
Yeah, crazy. I’ve never been able to look at that man the same way again. It’s bizarre that somebody could lay out the perfect case in advance as to why lockdowns were a foolish idea and then….support lockdowns.
So much here, David, that I don't know where to begin. Analogically, you've taken down a whole perceptive framework that oversees popular thinking today. Everything is a game, from evolutionary biology to human relations, to politics, to quantum theory, to economics. The illusion of control and choice in all matters is an especial affliction of the wealthy who experience a world of deference and variety of material choice. I love your examples, especially the casino. It captures the phenomenon perfectly. The lockdowns, however, don't quit fit because the matters you mention had been accounted for, and formed part of the conventional response to a pandemic, as per the Great Barrington Declaration. There truly were no excuses for that.
Thanks, Asa. I get what you mean about lockdowns - but the point is that for all that the Great Barrington Declaration was common sense, it was impossible for our politicians to see it that way. The GBD took an ecological approach to risk. The lockdowns were a ludic response.
This is so true—and kind of depressing. I don’t remember when it hit me, but at some point, I realized we’re living a centrally planned planned country....not too far from the Soviets, and it’ll keep going… until one day, it won’t.
Predictions only matter if you compare what you thought would happen with what actually happened. The difference between the two? That’s how far you are from reality. The MSM tends to focus on two things: either what's happening right now or some forecasted future that they hope will happen. The problem? No one actually goes back to check if those predictions were right.