STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane Admits Economic Forecasting Errors
By The Daily Bell - January 07, 2017

Chief economist of Bank of England admits errors in Brexit forecasting … Andrew Haldane says his profession must adapt to regain the trust of the public, claiming narrow models ignored ‘irrational behaviour.’  The Bank of England’s chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote. -Guardian

The top economist at England’s chief central bank has said economists are often wrong. He called critisisms about lack of accuracy in forecasting a “fair cop” and said the industry would have to do a better job.

More:

Andrew Haldane, said it was “a fair cop” referring to a series of forecasting errors before and after the financial crash which had brought the profession’s reputation into question.

Blaming the failure of economic models to cope with “irrational behaviour” in the modern era, the economist said the profession needed to adapt to regain the trust of the public and politicians.

Before Brexit, the actual head of the English central bank, Mark Carney, said that agreeing to Brexit would cause grave economic problems, So far that hasn’t happened yet. Then there was Lehman Brothers, which was supposed to have little impact on England. Instead it had a lot.

Haldane was speaking at the Institute for Government in central London. Despite his negative message, he was upbeat. He believed that economic forecasting  could improve a good deal.

Nonetheless, Haldane is bothered by criticisms and is worried forecasts will not be taken seriously if they continus to be wrong,

Former Tory ministers, including the former foreign secretary William Hague and the justice secretary Michael Gove, last year attacked the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, for predicting a dramatic slowdown in growth if the country voted to leave the EU.

The statement regarding Brexit’s bad effects was even taken as hoax by such individuals as Treasury’s Boris Johnson. Boris was pro Brexit. He said the chief central banker was criticizing Brexit just to make it sound bad.

Prime Minister Theresa May, criticised the bank as well. The bank should not have cut rates and boosted stimulus after the vote. It later turned out the economy was OK without the stimulus.

Haldane admitted the bank did not project such economic strength. But he also believed the timing was off, not the underlying forecast.

“I think, near-term, the data, the evidence we’ve been accumulating since the referendum, has surprised to the upside. [There’s been] greater resilience, in particular among consumers and among the housing market, than we had expected. Has that led us to fundamentally change our view on the fortunes of the economy looking forward over the next several years? Not really.”

And he is said to have added: “This is more a question, I think, of timing than of a fundamental reassessment of the fortunes of the economy. So back in November we published a forecast for inflation which was the highest we’ve ever published. And the forecast for growth in the UK economy, that was the lowest we have ever published.  We are still expecting this rather difficult balancing act for monetary policy with a slowing, not a huge slowing, but nonetheless a material slowing, during the course of next year as the effects of higher prices in the shops begin to chew away a little at the spending power of consumers and cause them to rein back a little in their spending.”

He even blamed British citizens for a lack of numeracy. So we can see that Haldane may want to cast the net of blame a good deal wider than just central bank affililiated economists.

In truth when it comes to economics, especially as it pertains to central banks, Haldane is mostly if not entirely wrong. The Bank of England is basically a government monopoly. Economists affiliated with it will certainly take positions agreeing with it.

The Bank of England was pro EU and thus apt to foresee some sort of calamitous event if Brexit passed. You won’t get a full range of predictions until the bank ceases to be a monopoly and economists don’t feel the need to answer in a certain way.

Conclusion: Until then, Haldane can say whatever he wants but important economists will continue to make forcasts that favor the English central bank for the sake of their jobs and promotions. As central bank outlooks continue to worsen, forecasts among many senior economists will grow even more inaccurate as a result.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Marcopolo

    Central banks and their Sr. economists went to the same briefing the climate scientists went to. They have their own hockey sticks, pointing down not up. And we’re back to the broken clock analogy.
    Global debt, the EU CB, Italian banks and their worthless bonds held by the Germans, and others will work its way to a Lehman moment regardless of Brexit.
    Was Thatcher that smart to join the EU but keep the Pound and not join the Euro for such eventualities?
    Inquiring minds want to know;-)

    • Eric Coote

      Politicians and Central Banks thrive on human related dominance, belief and sentiment, the Earth, and evolution, have no sentiment – only reaction – it doesn’t care about humans, politics or the Banks.

      • Marcopolo

        True. I’d really just like to be left alone to live out the time given to me. Those who seek dominance over others are simply predators. I have adapted to deal with them. They do seem to come up with new methods to “hunt.” This keeps taking too much of the time I’ve left to me. Patience is a virtue I don’t have; but I’m not irrational and again will adapt to these new challenges and stay out of harms way of politicians and CB’s.

        • Eric Coote

          Off subject again but – I’m with you Marcopolo but interfering busybodies keep arguing that my assets belong to them, in this line for example the banks want to ban any form of wealth that is not a bank deposit. This will not end until we stop politicians from organising their own secure income in perpetuity drawn from our wealth looked after (laugh) by their Bank mates. These scammers and scoundrels don’t need to save for anything – except for hobbies and Versailles-like competitive extravaganza maybe.

          • Marcopolo

            Without getting too PM orientated, gold and silver are money accepted globally. If one were able to obtain “some” and keep it out of the banking system and out of their country of domicile, they won’t be able to confiscate what they don’t know or see. One can do that in jurisdictions that haven’t suffered the fate of the Swiss and uS hegemony, and hundreds of years of reputation of keeping it yours, and keeping it safe.
            Check out BitGold too. I think they’re now known as Gold/Money. Interesting non currency but PM method of being able to maintain your wealth, yet use it in electronic transactions. And the PM’s are allocated-your names on them. There is no counterparty risk.

  • Jim Downey

    These people always miss. Their forecasts are developed to achieve their strategic goals, domination over the world’s finances.

    As they are in the UK, a better assignment for their skills would be to transfer to the climate change jokers to prepare their forecasts.

    OMG, its cold outside.

    • Eric Coote

      Why bring up climate? Although there is uncertainty climate predictions by professionals is based on science, because we live on a biological planet the predictions are naturally affected by some unpredictable changes in the biology of organisms that depend on biosphere, like us and like an immense range of organisms including plants. If you do not think climate warming is happening you have your eyes closed and a lemming.

      • Jim Downey

        Eric – Strongly recommend that you look at some facts, not propaganda. Or, if you really want to delude yourself, look at the NOAA falsified information overstating temp.

        If you really want to fix the planet, cut the population by 2/3’s.

        Will you volunteer?

        • Eric Coote

          No need to volunteer, evolution will solve the problem, whether now or generations to come. I agree on the population but animals/organisms always push limits until they crash or become the favourite or only food for competing biology.

          • Marcopolo

            Valid point. The planet will come up with something, or we’ll start pushing red buttons, and over time, the planet will give rise to some other organisms.
            Selfishly, I’m 2/3 through my average life expectancy and I’d like to finish it out under natural conditions. Then you can continue the arguments….but dress warmly;-)

        • Whyfor

          I am aghast that somebody who can read still ‘believes’ that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic global warming!

          Almost as shocking is that the myth that the globe is overpopulated endures. All of the people in the world could fit into a tiny corner of it. There is a problem of population density and the UN and its sustainable development movement is doing its best to intensify the problem by demanding that nations declare huge tracts of land no-person zones. Not only that, but by also inventing a need for ‘heritage lands’, ‘wildlands’ and ‘wetlands’, the UN directives (which nations have agreed to adopt probably because they owe the World Bank and IMF so much money) are severely limiting the amount of land available for agriculture as well as for the development of other resources that can ensure the survival and prosperity of a nation’s industry.

          The Powers That Think They Be really, really want to kill off the people they deem useless. Is that also what you want?

          • lulu

            There are many reasons to consider the earth over populated and the most pressing has to do with the human use of earth’s resources on a diminishing return scale. Sure all the billions could fit in a small corner but their food and water would have to come from elsewhere.

          • aj54

            so we can’t have land for animals other than homo sapiens? It took 200 million years to get to 1 billion population and only 200 additional years to get to 7 billion. During that 200 years we have stripped the ocean fisheries, strip mined the earth, blown away our top soil, used up 99.9% of oil, hunted species to extinction, and developed weapons we don’t have the intelligence to handle, all while being subjected to plagues, and pathological political and religious movements that kept our population temporarily in check. Ever hear of EROI? if you haven’t, you will. The elites don’t have to kill us off, the imminent collapse of civilization will accomplish it for them.. They are guaranteed to survive. Guess who is not?

        • lulu

          Facts vs propaganda appears to be a natter of perspective.

          • Doc

            Is that a fact?

          • lulu

            Well evidently it is a matter of perspective don’t you think?
            Seems we are doomed one way or the other.

          • Doc

            Fact or propaganda, a matter of perspective? I don’t agree.

            And not sure how you can be so sure of that, if you think one can’t distinguish between facts and propaganda. That must be an obvious contradiction.

      • Climate change? Have you noticed that bright light in the sky during daytime? It is called the Sun and it also provides heat! More sunspots, more heat. Less sunspots, less heat. Historical cycles have been documented and they continue to occur regularly.

        • Eric Coote

          Exactly – the sun has been very quiet for a few years now.

      • Marcopolo

        The reason I bring up climate, is of course the climate is changing. It always does since the planet had one. Science will tell you that.
        The charlatan’s will tell you it’s “man-driven” climate change, and will manipulate the data to show you. Just like governments and central banks manipulate data to show growth when there is none; no inflation ( or little) when there’s a lot.
        The science will also tell you that the number one “gas” in the atmosphere that contributes to warming and cooling is water vapor. We scurrying little ants will have to adjust what the planet is going to do in what ever phase of climate change it’s in. There’s a lot of science speaking to entering another mini-ice age period as occurred in the middle ages.
        The meme’s be they from CB/Elites, or bought and paid for scientists are just that.
        Go ask Musk and Tesla, kings of the rentier or mercantilist class, who’s sole real earnings come from the sale of “carbon credits” which was one of the central end points of the man-made climate meme.
        Just like the CB’s, and BS economists talking about “irrational behavior,” as is said, “follow the money.”
        The UN, filled with tin pot dictators, and most of the rest in someone’s pocket, is an organization long past expiration date, like NATO.
        I brought up climate because it’s the BS being flung in a different direction.
        I have my eyes wide open; more importantly my mind is too; to facts as researched, not spoon fed to me by MSM, the UN, or those who stand to gain from the meme’s be they CB’s, economist “guessers,” or government.

        • Eric Coote

          Phew Marco’ I wish I could be as confident as you either way. The evidence is so complex I cannot understand it but my reality in the southern hemisphere is rising temperatures during a solar minimum, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, rising carbon dioxide and methane – and oxygen falling steadily for decades. That together with Antarctic and Arctic warming, and deep ocean temperature change cannot be ignored. Just because air temperatures only rise by fractions of a degree or fall occasionally is part of the complexity of a living planet. I prefer to believe genuine scientist concerns rather than any political or corporate self serving rubbish – or skeptics. Like the ozone hole that causes skin cancers down here, nothing is done until the threat starts affecting the northern hemisphere mega-states. This air composition and planet change baby cannot be readily turned around, it’s inertia is measured in centuries and way beyond our capacity to react.

          • Marcopolo

            You answered your own questions…The planet and its climate swings in several directions over centuries after centuries. So in currently observable conditions in certain places on the planet are different than they were a century or two ago. We are trying to measure things in infinitely small time horizons vs. how the planet behaves over time and circumstances within the cosmos that can affect it. Just ask a dinosaur if you happen to find one.

            Last time I read a SCIENTIFIC paper on the arctic regions, they were beginning again to expand. Why? I don’t know. There are several explanations from sunspots, to a slight change in the magnetic poles. That’s called conjecture; not science.
            That mankind is causing a system so complex as climate (which is so poorly understood and for which science has little historic data-historic isn’t 1890 in climate terms) is conjecture; and that basis of conjecture has been categorically, scientifically, and through documented evidence determined to have been altered to fit a desired outcome or agenda. So damning is the evidence, that those involved have been stripped of their academic/scientific and in several cases their academic institutions tenure and support.
            Yes, there is trash in the oceans; yes what happens in the southern hemisphere is different (not necessarily better-however you’d define better) than the northern hemisphere.
            The quality of “air” has been shown to both worse and better than it is currently through sampling of ice cores, drilled at massive ice sheets that some say will be gone shortly.
            Los Angeles used to look like Beijing. Does Beijing have an air quality issue. Yes. Does it affect the planet? Don’t know. Some of the particulates are “cleansed” by rainfall, wind shifting, chemical interactions within the atmosphere, etc.
            Pick up a book on complexity theory; then you may get a hint of an idea of that we haven’t a clue to climate change, what causes it, and the carbon we belch out (which is incidental to the quantities emitted from bovines) is not a cause let alone a root cause.
            It’s a complex system that suffers from the Uncertainty Principle postulated by Heisenberg .
            Everything you’ve been reading about man made climate change is in fact self serving rubbish, by a wide variety of collectives of people.
            Have you ever wondered why trading on carbon credits was brought forward as an item for the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) more than a decade before anyone in the scientific community or the UN, or anyone else on the planet was raising the question of climate change, let alone man made, which by implication had to do with alleged emission of carbon?
            It’s all bollocks mate.
            You’re being played. They got the bait, the hook, and you’ve taken it.
            When this meme loses traction (as it is), don’t be alarmed, they’ll just find another hook, bait, and cast it out to you:-)

          • Eric Coote

            Yep the politicians will leverage anything so they and their mates can sit back and collect rent from anyone that works in the real economy. One day they will be taxing the air we breathe – wait that is here already (carbon).
            Freedom is a foreign concept to rat-bags.
            All I know is that for generations the reaction to environmental degradation has either been co-operation, or active management or running away, or dying.There is now nowhere to run as since the Industrial revolution we have adopted the attitude that it is OK to exploit and monetise everything and disregard natural systems and peoples personal space. There was a time when the common law in Britain held that anything not natural brought onto the land was a liability to whoever did it, if it caused anyone loss. Today, except for rare gross negligence prompting a riot that makes politicians uncomfortable, that no longer applies.
            So enjoy your 1/3 because they are coming after you one way or another and they can record just about everything you do.(except if you are Russian 🙂

          • JohnnyZ

            AGW is a fraud. But yes, we do have real pollution issues. Measuring those via CO2 and its alleged warming effect is BS!

          • Marcopolo

            I was born and raised on the east coast of the US. If you’re familiar, it is quite heavily forested excepting the major cities. What most US citizens don’t know is that all these forests are second generation. The “real” forests were cut down before and during the colonies separation from BE/UK to “build america.”
            If you don’t maintain your home or community, it will take the planet a very short period of time to “reclaim” it; same with rivers and streams we polluted in the 19th century that many are now “safe.” Other, where polluting industries remain are dangerous.
            Here in the uS, we still don’t understand that “active” management of our forests, create intense wild forest fires that destroy people and homes.
            We still have a very strong product liability tort laws. The problem is those harmed are usually willing to be bought off rather than push the issue.
            You have a far far greater chance of losing your life in a US hospital than by any terrorist action.
            Nature/the planet is in balance, and when it isn’t, events occur that bring it back into balance.
            We have the ability to create a nuclear winter, wiping out most life forms. Due to the devices used, the planet will take longer to recover. But, recover it will.
            CO2 is NOT the primary “warming agent” in our atmosphere. Read. Water vapor is, by orders of magnitude the greater primary warming agent. Anyone know why ice ages, big or little start? No.
            As I close this long winded conversation permanently from my side, a few parting words:
            We don’t know what we don’t know.
            Global climate changes constantly and why is unknown to science. Anyone who tells you different is either so egocentric as think they superior to all life forms, or a charlatan-in it for the gilt.
            Climate and planet is an enormously complex system that is beyond any scientific study currently, except for small, tiny, immediate cause and effect, short lived events.
            Finally, pick up a copy of “Simply Complexity” by Johnson and get an appreciation of complexity…
            Live long and prosper:-)

    • aj54

      it was 4 effin degrees here last night man

  • Doc

    The problem is hardly that the economist use “economic models” to forecast the future but fail. Neither is it that there is a political agenda behind these forecasts. You basically can alter any such a model to create any desired result, and economists do (I have seen it). They do it just to get a grant, be able to go on a conference to Bahamas or to suit their masters.

    I believe the issue is that economics isn’t about creating economic models to forecast the future to begin with.

    Economics is the science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor. This is the best definition I have found, and it comes from Austrian/Classical economist George Reisman.

    • rahrog

      “Economics is the study of the allocation of resources.” – Thomas Sowell

      • Doc

        I know Sowell’s work well, even proofread one of his books, Basic Economics. A great guy, but don’t think he ever claimed to have contributed much to economic theory.

        I think his definition, the mainstream one, is wrong and also plays into the hands of the central planners re-allocating existing resources.

        However, allocating existing resources efficiently hardly explains how they they were produced and came into existence to begin with. And nothing about how we can have so much more resources. today and expand them to in the future.

        The definition also ignores that it is impossible to produce at a higher level without division of labor, as if you can do it without it.

        • rahrog

          Is there a point to your blather, or are you just theorizing on theory?

          • Doc

            Well, you opened up the discussion about definitions by replying to me. I replied to you, remember. Not sure what your point was if that discussion was of no interest to you.

            But happy to drop the thread if you are keen.

          • rahrog

            I was adding a definition. Not trying to imply that one is better than the other. I prefer Sowell’s definition – so what?

            Definitions, models, and theories are not the problem. The problem with most current “forecasting” is that the establishment economists are in bed with war criminals.

            Nobody in their right mind expects economists to be able to predict the future – but if a group of economists (or others) start out with the intent to deceive – then we are led further away from the reality of how economies work.

          • Doc

            Fair dinkum.

  • Praetor

    Jeez! They can’t even tell the truth when their trying to convince us their telling the truth. They want us to believe they have predictive abilities. Like Nostradamus, they can see the future. Right.

    What about Natural Law and Individual Human Action do they not understand. I can tell you generally what it is I will do when I get up tomorrow morning, but I can not tell you specifically what I will do at any particular moment given any of the many circumstances that might arise. Generally I can say its going to be a good day but there is an ice storm coming. I can predict uncertainty. Forecasting is easy, lookout the window.!!!

  • aj54

    “… The Bank of England is basically a government monopoly……. You won’t get a full range of predictions until the bank ceases to be a monopoly and economists don’t feel the need to answer in a certain way.”

    so, is the article actually proposing that the cure for Britain is to make their central bank not entirely a government bank, but to privatize a portion as the Federal Reserve? that has turned out so well for us, eh?

    • Doc

      I am sure DB isn’t suggesting that the central bank monopoly should be privatised (like the Fed). I think they argue for abolishing the monopoly altogether.

    • william beeby

      As far as I know the UK government has a 25% non voting share in the bank and the other 75 % is privately owned and the major shareholder , as in most of the worlds central banks , is the Rothschild banking entity . Unlike the fed which is 100% privately owned the British government does get a small rake of from the B of E profits . The British government is owned by the Bank ( meaning it does what the Bank allows domestically and follows instructions on the world stage ) which has it`s own representative sitting behind the Speaker`s Chair who reports back any business which may affect the Bank. The City of London where the Bank is situated is an independent state like Washington DC and the Vatican and is responsible for all the foreign wars that Britain has been involved in . All wars are Banker`s Wars and always have been , who else can finance war than those who create the money out of nothing ad infinitem ?

  • The reality is the central bank is a government granted monopoly.

    The Bank of England is basically a government monopoly. Economists [and politicians] affiliated with it will certainly take positions agreeing with it.

    Oh? Are you so very sure? I was more thinking, because all freely available evidence was supportive, with QE and wild promissory Gilt auctions being but two obvious examples of such an inversion/reversion and perverse private pirate support, it was governments which were the monopoly granted by central bankers, with both ignorance and arrogance abusing and misusing the facility catastrophically.

    It is not as if it is not widely known either, is it, so why pretend it be otherwise, other than to realise the great individual danger its systems create to destroy the mortals that wield its power so badly …..

    “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”

    William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

    “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain.

    “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

    “The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.” H W White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” Thomas Jefferson, US President 1801-9.

    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson in the debate over The Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809).

    “Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.” Karl Marx writing in the Communist Manifesto (1848).

    “The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” Abraham Lincoln, US President 1861-5. He created government issue money during the American Civil War and was assassinated.

    “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilisation.” Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination.

    “That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations…” Captain Henry Kerby MP, in an Early Day Motion tabled in 1964.

    “Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing. ” Ralph M Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury.

    “… our whole monetary system is dishonest, as it is debt-based… We did not vote for it. It grew upon us gradually but markedly since 1971 when the commodity-based system was abandoned.” The Earl of Caithness, in a speech to the House of Lords, 1997.

    “Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave.” Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

    “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” Major L L B Angus.

    “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975). …… http://www.moneyreformparty.org.uk/money/about_money/quotes.php

    And now that you know of such false power and weak energy, what you gonna do about it? Anything remotely manly and interesting or terrifically exciting and destructively creative …… future changing?

    Or do you wait for Anonymous Others to lead with revolution and insurrection, mad terror and disruptive mayhem if current systems don’t heed their dire plight and fundamentally reform everything themselves to continue to retain and maintain the virtual reality with commanding control powers housed for enlightened administration and distribution within?

    Would such be kith and akin to Jihad?

  • LawrenceNeal

    “will not be taken seriously if they continus to be wrong,” Proof reading. How can you expect to be taken seriously if you continuously have grammatical errors? Turn on ‘Spellcheck’, and pay attention to it.

  • Red Baron

    Economists are like stopped clocks. They are only rarely correct and when they are, it is by accident. No one can wrap their economic model or mind around a nation’s economy. To pretend to be able to do so is arrogant and self-serving.

  • Bruce C.

    I’d like to know what Haldane, et al consider “irrational behavior.”

    Which part of the pre-2008 financial crisis was irrational; securitizing bad loans, over-rating them so they could be sold, or for the borrowers to stop paying their mortgages because of insufficient income?

    And which part of BREXIT was irrational? Not wanting to be sucked into the downward spiral of the EU, not wanting to lose UK political sovereignty, or not wanting to lose currency independence?

  • william beeby

    The Bank of England ( privately owned ) partly engineered the crash of 2008 just like they did in 1929 . This is just another PR exercise to make people think the Bank works for the good of the people.

loading