4 ms·

>unanimous approval of economists* * economists who were completely blindsided by the largest financial crisis of our time. In the UK there was near unanimous

>unanimous approval of economists* * economists who were completely blindsided by the largest financial crisis of our time. In the UK there was near unanimous 'expert' support for the idea that Brexit would immediately trigger a level of uncertainty pre-article 50 that would crater the economy and employment. Growth and employment are now ever so slightly up. >experts universally or near-universally agree on, convincing voters of these policies can be a hard sell. Because voters are suspicious about the supposed expertise of elite economists and they have pretty good reason. They've been sold on a lot of policies over the last 30 years that have fucked them.

dane-pgp 10y ago
I don't think that growth and employment being "ever so slightly up" gives the full picture here. The value of Stirling hit a 31-year low after the vote, which obviously made the UK an attractive market for overseas buyers (such as Japan's SoftBank buying ARM) but wasn't so good for the people of Britain. This is before Article 50 has even been invoked, and any optimism in the market may reflect the belief that Britain might have second thoughts about leaving. The policies of the "elite" economists have lead to economic growth that Britain as a whole has benefited from. What did hurt people, though, is that in the last 30 years, UK governments haven't shared this growth fairly, nor have they sufficiently invested in public services, policies which the EU had no control over and will only get worse if Britain leaves.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >The value of Stirling hit a 31-year low after the vote, which obviously made the UK an attractive market for overseas buyers ...and so why didn't the experts foresee this if it was so obvious? Why did they predict a cataclysmic decline in employment instead? >wasn't so good for the people of Britain. Depends whether you're concerned more about reviving jobs in depressed industrial areas or the value of your stock portfolio/holidaying in the riviera. Anyway, whether or not you think Brexit was good or not (I think personally probably not), there's no doubt that "project fear" was an apt description of the remain side's "expert" arguments.

dane-pgp 10y ago

I don't think that growth and employment being "ever so slightly up" gives the full picture here. The value of Stirling hit a 31-year low after the vote, which obviously made the UK an attractive market for overseas buyers (such as Japan's SoftBank buying ARM) but wasn't so good for the people of Britain. This is before Article 50 has even been invoked, and any optimism in the market may reflect the belief that Britain might have second thoughts about leaving. The policies of the "elite" economists have lead to economic growth that Britain as a whole has benefited from. What did hurt people, though, is that in the last 30 years, UK governments haven't shared this growth fairly, nor have they sufficiently invested in public services, policies which the EU had no control over and will only get worse if Britain leaves.

crdoconnor 10y ago
>The value of Stirling hit a 31-year low after the vote, which obviously made the UK an attractive market for overseas buyers ...and so why didn't the experts foresee this if it was so obvious? Why did they predict a cataclysmic decline in employment instead? >wasn't so good for the people of Britain. Depends whether you're concerned more about reviving jobs in depressed industrial areas or the value of your stock portfolio/holidaying in the riviera. Anyway, whether or not you think Brexit was good or not (I think personally probably not), there's no doubt that "project fear" was an apt description of the remain side's "expert" arguments.