Bright~?

~~~

The last ten years have been very good for economists (financially) but not so good for `the economic profession`.

The Telegraph UK
The economists have had another terrible year. It’s time for a complete re-think

In a devastating recent analysis, the American economist Paul Romer asserted that macro-economics has been going backwards for more than three decades, with economic modelling succumbing to what he has called “mathiness”, an obsession with mathematic laws and equations which bear very little relation to the real world, ignore the lessons of other disciplines and are frequently out of touch with the inherently unpredictable nature of human behaviour.

When he wrote his treatise, Adam Smith was not an economist at all, but a professor of moral philosophy, yet many economists have come to believe that they should be as divorced from moral judgement as scientists – that economics should be a technical discipline free of ethical concerns. In the battle between moralism and mechanism, mechanism won. Unlike science, however, it doesn’t appear to have delivered anything remotely useful.

.

All very well, but there is nothing to replace `economists`.

They are established into the world. They are an integrated part of the fabric of society.
You can’t just `wish them away`.
They are `the authority` on many subjects. You can’t argue with them (unless you are one).
It would be very bold for any `leader` to `get rid of` their economist(s).
The best that can be done … is to leave them where they are and only pretend to listen to them.

~~~

Independent UK
Consumer credit growth hits new 11-year high prompting warnings of ‘unsustainable’ expansion
Credit rose by a further £1.9bn in the month, taking the 12 month growth rate to 10.8 per cent.

The bulk of UK household debt is in secured mortgages.

The bank reported that the number of new mortgages for house purchases rose by 67,505 in November, slightly ahead of City expectations of 67,400.

~~~

Be of no doubt … Government wants out of `the pension providing business`.

~~~

Although, the future does look bright –

~~~

~~~

  • Axionication3

    Superb photo!

    (Economist =Haruspex. I am sure that many an empower would have thought ‘wtf…the shit I have to go along with)

  • amoeba

    Bonjour.

    You may, or may not, break a smile from some of the comments after this article.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/05/women-period-leave-pay-gap-day

    • Statistics … If they are … say … 36/24/36 … then they are okay, otherwise they are probably over manipulated.

      Paying people different amounts for doing the same job is illegal … next~!?

      • amoeba

        You are alienating all the female contributers to this blog.

        Hmmm, as there do not appear to be any, maybe there should be a bit of pro-activity to prise them away from the kitchen sink and hoover?

  • amoeba

    “Consumer credit growth hits new 11-year high prompting warnings of ‘unsustainable’ expansion”

    This was recently called “robust” in another article.

    Economists are fucking with the langwidge.

    • Economists can say whatever they like … No one can contradict them~!

      (they are very clever fools)

  • amoeba

    Is this going to be the “theme” for 2017?

    The Voice of Nationalism?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/southern-rail-british-railways-typical-europeans-a7511756.html

    Luckily neither the Chinese nor the Indians bought into Southern Railways, otherwise they would once again be blamed.

    Still, the author did also have a go at the robust remuneration of the top employees.

    “To be fair, while the companies who have been in charge of the railways are foreign, many of the executives are British so we can at least be proud of that. Dean Finch, National Express Chief Executive, made £3.3m in 2015, which he says is justified, so presumably he personally turned up at every commuter’s house and gave them a piggy back.”

    I do not have a problem with entrepreneurs with a lot of skin in the game, indeed sometimes all their skin, making a fortune. I do feel a slight grudge against employees rewarding themselves the equivalent of 15 average houses per annum, with no skin in the game and often a healthy parachute to protect their knees from any scuffing after being retired.