A WHILE back I wrote about the unfailing ability of political pundits to get it wrong.

In fact, I recall saying that if the average racing tipster had the same failure rate, they would soon be heading for the job centre.

Well, there’s another set of experts whose predictions are rarely worth the paper they’re written on.

These soothsayers don’t read the racing pages, though. Their noses are never out of the Financial Times. Their field of expertise is in the world of gross domestic products, endogenous growth and quantitative easing, not the 3.30 at Haydock Park.

They are, of course, the economists, people to whom we listen in the kind of hushed awe we once reserved for doctors and lawyers.

This week the kingpins of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) passed judgement on Government policy. Their verdict seemed to be that it’s hurting, but it’s working.

Almost in the same breath, they “downgraded” or “revised” their previous forecast for growth – just like they had downgraded the one before.

So, roughly translated the message was: “We’ve got it wrong in the past, but this time, we’re right. Trust us.”

Of, course, many of us do. We’re so worried about the way the economy is going that even bad news, so long as it’s delivered by someone with an air of authority, a nice suit and an impressive job-title, makes us feel better.

But it doesn’t make me feel any easier.

First, like most of the other experts, the IMF didn’t predict the global financial catastrophe which landed us in this mess in the first place. It did nothing to curb the spendand- borrow frenzy that led us to the brink.

Secondly, its excuses for its previous mistakes sound a bit flimsy. Growth is down because of the hike in the price of oil, raw materials and food, even the effect of the earthquake in Japan, it says.

But the fact is that economies operate not in a laboratory, but in the real world. Sadly, in that real world, bad things like wars and natural disasters happen. We know too that people often behave in unpredictable ways, unforeseen by the experts. Some of them – I’m whispering this bit – are actually motivated by what’s good for society, not what puts most cash into their pocket.

Economic forecasts that don’t take into account these factors will always have to be downgraded or revised because they will always be wrong. The economists have got to stop blaming reality for their errors.

I’ve one final cause for concern.

I’m sure John Lipsky, the acting boss of the IMF, is a nice man; certainly nicer than his predecessor Dominique Strauss-Kahn, anyway.

But I am equally sure that not a single spoonful of the medicine he is so keen to prescribe for us will pass his lips.

There will be no pay freeze for Mr Lipsky nor any of his colleagues who breathe the same rarefied air; no short-time working; no month-on-month worries about the bills; no lengthening hospital waiting list; no depletion of his essential public services.

So, day by day the gap between the expert’s reality and that experienced by the ordinary citizen will grow. The respect we show these people will soon be replaced by a cynical shrug. We may even take the bold step of taking control of our own economic destinies.

We may not get it right but at least the mistakes we make will be our own. It won’t be ideal, but it will be better than paying someone handsomely to make them for us.