The dreaded Could of the economist
Robert Peston inadvertently highlights a common journalistic trap today - a trap laid for them by a frequent and annoying habit of economists. David Walker, author of last year's Walker Review on bank governance , has written in the FT that: "[A]ny attempt to require banded disclosure for UK banks in isolation would be commercially sensitive vis à vis their non-disclosing competitors elsewhere. It could also stimulate higher executive turnover, and (as a perverse unintended consequence) lead to higher remuneration as a defensive retention measure." [emphasis mine] What exactly do "could" and "would" mean in this context? They have a very specific meaning in economist rhetoric. Would means: is guaranteed to have the following effect on an unobservable variable . Note that Walker can confidently state that this is "commercially sensitive" because there's no way to measure, confirm or deny whether that is the case. Could means...