Economists didn't get their message across
Jul. 4th, 2016 06:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arganoidWhy did the majority ignore the economic consensus that leaving the EU and the single market would be extremely bad for the economy?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8339
I'll paste some of the highlights of the article below. The first point has a lot in common with how the BBC used to cover climate change – they'd give equal weight to both sides, interviewing one person who was saying that climate change is a serious threat, and another person who said that it wasn't – even though the second viewpoint is a fringe view among actual scientists.
"voters could be forgiven for being baffled by the “balance” on offer. There is always a minority on any issue. In this case the minority of economists believing Brexit would not be damaging was disappearingly small. But that is not how it would have appeared. A dozen Nobel laureates got less coverage than a few mavericks. And every time world-renowned individuals and institutions published a serious piece of work, smears and lies about them were given equal weight."
"we have failed to communicate basic economic concepts to politicians, journalists and businesspeople, never mind the public. Let me be clear I am blaming us, the economists, for that. I have been astonished by the number of people in recent months who have said to me that a fall in the exchange rate makes us richer, not poorer; that there is a fixed number of jobs in the economy; that a short-term negative shock will have no long-term consequences. These ideas are wholly wrong and we have utterly failed to set out why."
"Finally, perhaps, there is the language we use. Who cares about “the economy”, “growth”, “trade”, if we can’t translate them directly into “incomes”, “jobs”, “living standards”. We must start speaking more plainly."
"The referendum has happened and the political landscape has already changed beyond recognition. But the economics have not changed. It should already be plain that the short-term uncertainty is seriously damaging. For the longer term it remains the case that loss of full access to the single market would be economically devastating. We need to keep saying that to the politicians renegotiating our relationship with the EU, and to the public on whose behalf they will be negotiating. And we must say it clearly enough that they, and the public, cannot fail to hear it."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8339
I'll paste some of the highlights of the article below. The first point has a lot in common with how the BBC used to cover climate change – they'd give equal weight to both sides, interviewing one person who was saying that climate change is a serious threat, and another person who said that it wasn't – even though the second viewpoint is a fringe view among actual scientists.
"voters could be forgiven for being baffled by the “balance” on offer. There is always a minority on any issue. In this case the minority of economists believing Brexit would not be damaging was disappearingly small. But that is not how it would have appeared. A dozen Nobel laureates got less coverage than a few mavericks. And every time world-renowned individuals and institutions published a serious piece of work, smears and lies about them were given equal weight."
"we have failed to communicate basic economic concepts to politicians, journalists and businesspeople, never mind the public. Let me be clear I am blaming us, the economists, for that. I have been astonished by the number of people in recent months who have said to me that a fall in the exchange rate makes us richer, not poorer; that there is a fixed number of jobs in the economy; that a short-term negative shock will have no long-term consequences. These ideas are wholly wrong and we have utterly failed to set out why."
"Finally, perhaps, there is the language we use. Who cares about “the economy”, “growth”, “trade”, if we can’t translate them directly into “incomes”, “jobs”, “living standards”. We must start speaking more plainly."
"The referendum has happened and the political landscape has already changed beyond recognition. But the economics have not changed. It should already be plain that the short-term uncertainty is seriously damaging. For the longer term it remains the case that loss of full access to the single market would be economically devastating. We need to keep saying that to the politicians renegotiating our relationship with the EU, and to the public on whose behalf they will be negotiating. And we must say it clearly enough that they, and the public, cannot fail to hear it."
