The "nobody could have known" excuse in economic policy

"Nobody could have known": economic policy's perfect alibi

There is a statistical regularity that no macroeconomic indicator captures: the phrase "nobody could have known" only appears once the mess has already been made. Never before. In April 2026, with the political spotlight on Pedro Sánchez's government, the expression is being repeated like a mantra in the face of problems that were, in fact, announced.

The question is no longer whether there were warning signs, but who decides to ignore them. The usual playbook combines two moves: first, it is claimed the situation was unpredictable; then, once it is shown that earlier reports existed, the answer is that "we're paying closer attention now." That second part is true: public attention is retroactive. What goes unsaid is that the technical analyses had been sitting on the table for months, or years.

Blame, depending on the lens

From the opposition's side, the reading is straightforward: if the data was there and no action was taken, the responsibility is political. On the other side, the argument runs that managing the unpredictable is precisely the job of governing, and that turning every mistake into a conspiracy helps explain nothing. The paradox is that both sides accept the same premise: that the future, once it arrives, always trinc a straight line.

The underlying question is not whether the government of the day should have known. It is why "nobody could have known" is invoked with more fervor the greater the prior evidence. If unpredictability were real, it would also be invoked when things go well. It is not.

But the question hovering over every meeting of the upcoming cabinet is simpler: if everything was so unpredictable, why does the mistake always fall in the same direction? Why is history always written with the same excuse? Perhaps because that, at least, is one forecast that never fails.