Ironically, I found the second half much better than the average "new economics" thinkpiece.

It's wholly nonempircal, to be sure, and it seems to ignore current trends in regulation and corporate behavior. But it does manage to put together an internally-consistent vision for the future, which is surprisingly rare. That alone puts it head and shoulder above the common calls for UBI, or deregulation, or a gig economy which fail to even consider the framework required for such a change.

" is just ideology, without much foundation in empiricism"

That's pretty much how politics work nowadays...

I'm pretty sure it's always been like that but presently I lack the data prove it

I think that most political issues (as well as personal ones) are matters of opinion anyway, not lending themselves well to mathematical quantification.

That doesn't mean the facts and predictions from economic experts should have been ignored in this vote. This was an issue with some pretty clear ramifications.

Well really the opinions of economists on this DID have real, quantifiable backing. It's not just ideological conjecture when economists assert that backing out of a trade union will have negative consequences.

I was talking about politics in general. In this particular case, some economic aspects might be matters of fact to which one can apply forecasting techniques, whereas other aspects (e.g. whether one does or does not accept that power over one's country is given to the EU, and whether one wishes to strive towards or away from being one country with the other European Union countries) are more matters of opinion.

Of course - It just seems weird to say that when leaving the E.U. isn't just a matter of opinion. There are certainly some political issues that are only a matter of opinion, but this issue was much, much more.

If anything, it shows that the leave voters in the U.K. are not very interested in facts and forecasts made by experts.

> If anything, it shows that the leave voters in the U.K. are not very interested in facts and forecasts made by experts.

What you describe is at least one possibility. Another one is that the voters consider other aspects more important.

>Another one is that the voters consider other aspects more important.

Which is the same as saying they are not very interested in the facts and forecasts made by experts.

The majority of the leave voters are undeducated, older, and xenophobic. [1] The misinformation spread by the leave campaigners fed into their fears about immigration, which lead them to ignore facts. [2] [3]

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/...

[2] https://www.rt.com/uk/346342-brexit-voters-ignorance-misinfo...

[3] https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharch...

> Which is the same as saying they are not very interested in the facts and forecasts made by experts.

I don't see how that would be the same thing. What I'm saying is that even if you trust a certain forecast that says that X will happen if you vote A and Y will happen if you vote B, and even if you consider X to be more beneficial than Y, you might still choose to vote B because you find it better in other respects.

By the way, I'm not sure linking to Russia Today adds much. I'd be wary of trusting their angle on things. It's all good, though, since you included the original link.

Just like with your hypothetical political policy, sure, that hypothetical X,Y,Z situation could make sense somewhere. Except that the facts are different with this political issue and what is known about those who voted for it.

Russia Today is quoting an FT article that's behind a paywall saying the same thing, if you're still uncertain.