Paul Romer, World Bank experts

[Paul Waine]

Times carried a report yesterday: "Arrogant Economists paved way for Brexit."

Paul Romer, Chief Economist of The World Bank said: “To me, Brexit was a vote against the expert advice of economists. We have to earn back our credibility as professionals who will give an unbiased answer. In political discourse, activists often claim that their position is morally superior and no one seems to care, but when economists did so, voters reacted very negatively, perhaps because they are alert to even a whiff of hypocrisy and they sensed that economists were behaving like activists yet invoking the authority of science.

“In these matters, the professional role for the economist is to remain on the sidelines and to stand ready to offer an unbiased answer to questions from the players or the crowd.”

"Economists need to stop acting as if they own the moral high ground and start behaving with more humility if they are to win back the public’s trust after Brexit. Dr Romer said that a popular backlash against experts needed to be taken seriously and that Brexit had been partly a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of economists who claimed to be making unbiased judgments but were actually taking political positions."

"Rather than answer questions about “what if” something happens, economists thought their role was to answer questions about what ought to happen, Dr Romer said. The decision to try to guide people’s decisions was a mistake, he added. Citing public concern about immigration despite the net benefit it provides to output and the public finances, he said: “We should not have gone along with any hint that support for immigration was morally superior to opposition.”

So, the "wisdom of crowds" triumphed over the "experts" who had overstepped their position, claiming economic models were proving scientific facts.

Take a bow, if you were among those who were sceptical of the "it will all end in disaster" claims last year, and keep it in mind while the politicians campaign for our votes in June.

[SammyBoy]

That could be true, I personally still value the opinion of experts though - no matter how unfashionable it has become.

[Falcon]

I'd also wait to see how Brexit pans out before feeling smug that it hasn't 'ended in disaster'.

[Lancasterclaret]

There will be an economic impact to Brexit.

Anyone trying to claim otherwise is treating the average UK voter as an idiot.

Not that it will make any difference now anyway.

Only difference would be in May loses in June, which is as likely as me thinking Nigel Farage would make an great UK prime minister

[Darthlaw]

Standard 'Brexit will end in Armageddon or Nirvana' dependent upon your agenda. Its just a Black/white stance of politics these days.

There is no middle ground, just the lies at either end of the argument. If you want something closer to the truth, you'll have to find it for yourself.

[quoonbeatz]

of course, its just one expert's opinion, an expert who seems to think he speaks for all experts in denouncing the credibility of experts.

so i'd take his expert view with an expert pinch of expert salt.

[aggi]

Take a bow, if you were among those who were sceptical of the "it will all end in disaster" claims last year, and keep it in mind while the politicians campaign for our votes in June.

It has barely started, never mind anywhere near ended, so that's a brave statement.

[dpinsussex]

There will be an economic impact to Brexit.

Anyone trying to claim otherwise is treating the average UK voter as an idiot.

To be fair a good proportion are

[BleedingClaret]

To be fair a good proportion are

[Paul Waine]

It has barely started, never mind anywhere near ended, so that's a brave statement.

Hi aggi, all I'm saying is that the Chief Economist of The World Bank has said that economists were wrong to make the political claims they made in the lead up to the referendum. He also says they were wrong to suggest that there was moral superiority in the predictions the economists expressed.

The previous Governor of the Bank of England, Lord King, has also expressed similar criticisms of the "doom and gloom" brexit forecasts - and is also mentioned in The Times article.

I've no problem with anyone making forecasts of what will happen as brexit is implemented. But, many of the "experts" who were the source of these forecasts are now saying they were wrong, wrong with their forecasts and wrong to claim that there was "moral truths" in their forecasts.

[dsr]

Economists are less reliable than weather forecasters, IMO. Certainly George Osborne (who one assumes was receiving advice from economists, though he may of course have been ignoring it) was hopelessly inaccurate with all of his budget forecasts, including the last one about needing an emergency budget immediately after a vote for Brexit.

[john'sroseyspecs]

Economists make forcasts. Then then announce revised forcasts. Bit like having a bet on the Grand National and then getting to change your mind after the first circuit. They are the modern equivalent of soothsayers.

[ten bellies]

Economists are less reliable than weather forecasters, IMO. Certainly George Osborne (who one assumes was receiving advice from economists, though he may of course have been ignoring it) was hopelessly inaccurate with all of his budget forecasts, including the last one about needing an emergency budget immediately after a vote for Brexit.

Qualified, well educated, well paid, guessers.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, all I'm saying is that the Chief Economist of The World Bank has said that economists were wrong to make the political claims they made in the lead up to the referendum. He also says they were wrong to suggest that there was moral superiority in the predictions the economists expressed.

The previous Governor of the Bank of England, Lord King, has also expressed similar criticisms of the "doom and gloom" brexit forecasts - and is also mentioned in The Times article.

I've no problem with anyone making forecasts of what will happen as brexit is implemented. But, many of the "experts" who were the source of these forecasts are now saying they were wrong, wrong with their forecasts and wrong to claim that there was "moral truths" in their forecasts.

He doesn't actually say there was any problems with the forecasts though, just the way in which they were presented. Their own views may have coloured presenting something like the net benefit that immigration provides to output and the public finances but the figures underlying that are still true. You can argue against immigration on other stances, which some economists may have dismissed, but the data doesn't change.

[Lancasterclaret]

No offence lads, but I'm going to trust an economist whose spent his whole life studying this kind of thing over blokes who think that leaving the worlds biggest customs union is the best bet for our economy.

[Paul Waine]

No offence lads, but I'm going to trust an economist whose spent his whole life studying this kind of thing over blokes who think that leaving the worlds biggest customs union is the best bet for our economy.

Hi Lancs, I understand Paul Romer is "one of the best" working in this field. He is identifying that the economists who forecast "gloom and doom" started from a personal believe that the EU is "good" and "leaving is bad" and then presented their "science says" from that biased starting point. Romer is saying that they weren't acting as economists when they did that, "merely" (my phrase) as political activists.

Yes, the UK is leaving the EU and a single market/customs union that Margaret Thatcher created - I'm quoting Nick Clegg (2 May) in this attribution. Economics isn't the "be all and end all" of life. Even if it was, doesn't Junkers presentation over the past few days provide clear insights into the thinking of the EU elites and justify that leaving is the better course of action?

[Lancasterclaret]

I've been pretty clear since Day one on this that my main motivation for this is the economic impact that this will have on our country, and the strains and stresses that will cause Paul.

Nothing I've seen from our current government suggests I'm wrong, nor do the opinions of the vast majority of the economists.

I need more that a robot saying "strong and stable" to start to believe otherwise.

[NewForestClaret]

Trouble with experts is that most of them represent the view of those who pay or direct them, or have a theory or opinion and provide the one sided evidence to back it up.

As with forecasts of immediate disaster after Brexit:

- Those experts who led us to a nutrition disaster by telling us that fat is bad, dietary cholesterol is bad but sugar is ok. Research paid for by the sugar industry and peoples careers ruined. The US FDA are now changing their official advice.

- Those experts who are telling us that climate change is because of us. Research paid for by governments and peoples careers ruined. I wouldn't mind betting that in 20 years time we will all find that it has been a huge con.

I am not surprised that people choose to ignore experts these days. There is so much information available now days to enable people to make up their own minds. Notice that governments, corporations and media organisations don't like it and are doing their best to interrupt and interfere with freedom of access to it.

Just my views arrived at by having too much time on my hands to spend looking stuff up. I have now become sceptical and cynical about anything that is pumped at us by governments and media as a default position.

[Paul Waine]

Trouble with experts is that most of them represent the view of those who pay or direct them, or have a theory or opinion and provide the one sided evidence to back it up.

As with forecasts of immediate disaster after Brexit:

- Those experts who led us to a nutrition disaster by telling us that fat is bad, dietary cholesterol is bad but sugar is ok. Research paid for by the sugar industry and peoples careers ruined. The US FDA are now changing their official advice.

- Those experts who are telling us that climate change is because of us. Research paid for by governments and peoples careers ruined. I wouldn't mind betting that in 20 years time we will all find that it has been a huge con.

I am not surprised that people choose to ignore experts these days. There is so much information available now days to enable people to make up their own minds. Notice that governments, corporations and media organisations don't like it and are doing their best to interrupt and interfere with freedom of access to it.

Just my views arrived at by having too much time on my hands to spend looking stuff up. I have now become sceptical and cynical about anything that is pumped at us by governments and media as a default position.

Hi NewForest, agree, always sensible to look at the motivation behind the advice.

We can add diesel pollution to the list. Short-sited politicians trying to tackle one perceived longer term problem have most likely created a more critical and immediate threat to our health.

I'm encouraged by Paul Romer admitting that the economists have got it wrong.

I've been around long enough - and been lucky with my own experience - to be in a position to look at what people are saying and draw my own conclusions. If you have "paid attention" to politics and economics over the years you will have learnt something of the econometric models that are used by forecasters (governments and other "expert" organisations). The "doom and gloom" claims that were made reflected too much political bias and were/are poor forecasts as a result.

It's a bit like the two penalties for ManU and ManC on Sunday - the ref was fooled into awarding pens. A "tv ref" review procedure might have resulted in different decisions - and, retrospective reviews may persuade footballers the x match ban hurts more than the short term (potential) match winning gain.

With brexit we now have Romer and Lord King reviewing the forecasts that were published last year. Of course, we also have a lot of attention on the start of brexit negotiations - and economic forecasts being made with the same political biases as in 2016. Give things time. We will see that the difference between "in" or "out" will not be the cost of leaving, but the path that the EU27 follow in the years ahead.

[aggi]

'm encouraged by Paul Romer admitting that the economists have got it wrong. I still don't think he's said that the fundamentals were wrong, more how the message was presented.

The issue with people making up their own minds is that it isn't done critically. The same person will dismiss experts because they're biased and then believe something in the Daily Mail or that they saw on Facebook that confirms their existing bias.

Similarly, people (often prompted by the press) look at the raw numbers from a study and jump to a conclusion, never mind how statistically significant it is and whether correlation does actually imply causation.

[NewForestClaret]

"The issue with people making up their own minds is that it isn't done critically."

We all have to make our minds up somehow. It is simply not fair to assume that everyone makes their mind up according to what they read in the Daily Mail, or the BBC for that matter. But actually, how is that any different to the last 50 years? How have people ever made their minds up about anything?

I don't think the data presented to us by political parties, corporations or the media is done so critically. They have a vested interest which is usually selfish. It doesn't take much effort to cross check a news headline often to find that either it's not true, partially true or that only one side of the story is presented. The BBC, sky News and even worse, C$ News are very good at not saying stuff.

There is so much information available now. Much of it doesn't actually require interpretation by experts. I maintain my case, most of the experts have a vested interest, it is not always right to assume they are correct.

[Lancasterclaret]

But surely someone with thirty odd years experience in his field is be listened to ahead of, oh I don't know, a couple of contributors to a football forum?

[NewForestClaret]

But surely someone with thirty odd years experience in his field is be listened to ahead of, oh I don't know, a couple of contributors to a football forum?

Very good. But how do you make up your mind which expert to listen to? The one the BBC tells you to? The one your mate agrees with? The one that your chosen political party suggests? Why take their word?

Just as well SD didn't take any notice of the experts with his team selection on Saturday.

[dsr]

But surely someone with thirty odd years experience in his field is be listened to ahead of, oh I don't know, a couple of contributors to a football forum?

Always listen to experts - but don't necessarily do as they say. My mother decided not to take thalidomide for morning sickness, in spite of the experts who told her it was safe.

In the case of economics, it's such a theoretical subject anyway that being an expert doesn't necessarily help.

[Paul Waine]

Always listen to experts - but don't necessarily do as they say. My mother decided not to take thalidomide for morning sickness, in spite of the experts who told her it was safe.

In the case of economics, it's such a theoretical subject anyway that being an expert doesn't necessarily help.

Oh dsr, mention of thalidomide sent a shiver down my spine. Yes, my mother had the same careful attitude. I think she used to say that she'd flushed the tablets down the loo. I had a friend who was born with the disabilities from thalidomide.

As for economics, it is very far from being a precise science. Very interesting and rewarding, nevertheless.

[Paul Waine]

But surely someone with thirty odd years experience in his field is be listened to ahead of, oh I don't know, a couple of contributors to a football forum?

Hi Lancs, what if the mb contributor also knows something of the subject and understands what the "experts" are trying to do?

Though, to be honest, the "wisdom of the crowd" can also be very informative.

[Lancasterclaret]

Very good. But how do you make up your mind which expert to listen to? The one the BBC tells you to? The one your mate agrees with? The one that your chosen political party suggests? Why take their word?

By taking one from the left, one from the centre and one from the right maybe? The drawing your own conclusions from that?

It does take time, but not as much as typing out this reply does!

I've no problem with how people vote and act on stuff they read online, but the days of balance appear to be over.

[Lancasterclaret]

Though, to be honest, the "wisdom of the crowd" can also be very informative.

Only if the crowd have made up their own minds based on a combination of facts, which is a very rare occurrence these days.

[Paul Waine]

Only if the crowd have made up their own minds based on a combination of facts, which is a very rare occurrence these days.

That's the interesting question, Lancs. How do the "crowds" make their decisions? I'd argue that a large enough crowd can make the right decision even if everyone doesn't have/understand all the facts.

But, that's possibly a mega-data style study.

[aggi]

What you're more likely to get, even more so now with Facebook, search results influenced by previous searches, the ease of finding like-minded forums, etc is echo chambers where everything validates your existing belief because what is being presented to you has been tuned to be in line with your beliefs.

You end up with two crowds, both certain that their view is correct, most people agree with them and media/news/online articles support that view.

[Rowls]

Paul Romer, Chief Economist of The World Bank said: “To me, Brexit was a vote against the expert advice of economists. We have to earn back our credibility as professionals who will give an unbiased answer. In political discourse, activists often claim that their position is morally superior and no one seems to care, but when economists did so, voters reacted very negatively, perhaps because they are alert to even a whiff of hypocrisy and they sensed that economists were behaving like activists yet invoking the authority of science.

A lot of wisdom in what he says but I've never found economists to be credible.

They've a long history on matters like this.