4 ms·

The fact that a field misses one prediction doesn't invalidate the entire field. Would you declare climate science invalid because it didn't predict the hiatus?

dredmorbius 10y ago
There was no haitus. That is a myth and falsehood you're propogating. http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-“hiatus”7639 http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-“hiatus”7639 The 2007-8 financial crisis is the most significant economic event of the preceeding 78 years. And it was virtually completely unanticipated by mainstream economists. Alan Greenspan, head of the world's most significant central bank, has conceeded his worldview was deeply flawed. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24pan... The Queen of England has asked why no one saw the credit crunch happening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3386353/The-Queen-asks-why-no-one-saw-the-credit-crunch-coming.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/338635... So: not only are you incorrect in your example of false predictions, but you're severely discounting the scope of economics' failure here.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Call it what you will - I know the word "hiatus" puts people in a tizzy - the predictions made in the 90's did not correspond to the graph of what actually happened. I have no idea how you would describe 2007-2008 as the most significant economic event of the previous years. It's a minor blip at most. Maybe it's just because I'm not in the US right now, but to me this seems far more significant: https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/062816carney-Elephant.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-... This is also something pretty significant, and predicted quite nicely by economics: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a9c9410604877c7529d1ea908a5c06e6 https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a9c9410604877c7529d1ea...
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Warming happened. It didn't happen where it was initially predicted. What are you claiming happened in terms of net atmospheric + ocean warmth? Here's US GDP, percent change from previous year, 1930 - 2016: https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table-4.pdf https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table... Wikipedia states that: The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Given that Wikipedia is not in fact a primary source, that's backed with a primary source. Oh, I'm sorry, four: ReferencesEdit "Two top economists agree 2009 worst financial crisis since great depression; risks increase if right steps are not taken". Reuters. 27 February 2009. Retrieved 10 November 2015. Eigner, Peter; Umlauft, Thomas S. (2015-07-01). "The Great Depression(s) of 1929–1933 and 2007–2009? Parallels, Differences and Policy Lessons". MTA-ELTE Crisis History Working Paper No. 2: Hungarian Academy of Science. SSRN 2612243Freely accessible. Eichengreen; O'Rourke. "A tale of two depressions: What do the new data tell us?". VoxEU.org. Retrieved 2016-02-22. Temin, Peter (2010-01-01). "The Great Recession and the Great Depression". National Bureau of Economic Research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%... Your graphs are utter non sequiturs here, and fail to make any coherent argument, let alone support it.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Warming happened. It didn't happen where it was initially predicted I'm glad we agree that the prediction was wrong. I guess ignore climate science since it made one bad prediction? (Note that I don't advocate this, but if we hold climate science to the same standard some good econ to, we should.) "Worst financial crisis" and "most significant economic effect" are not the same thing. The graphs I've cited illustrate events of far larger significance than the financial crisis, namely bringing billions out of poverty. That was due mainly to trade liberalization, as predicted by economics.
pjmorris 10y ago
The fact that the field ignored a gigantic signal until the world economy had nearly ground to a halt suggests, to me, that there's more going on than missing one prediction.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Since the signal was giant, I take it you made a lot of money by betting against it?
  - pjmorris 10y ago
    Some. Not like Michael Burry. Starting with seeing what was going on in my South Florida neighborhood, and seeing Robert Schiller's graph of house prices vs. income in the NYT in 2005, I did a bunch of research, leading to selling one house in 2005, and another in 2007. I made money on both. Those buyers each later lost money when they sold the houses. On balance, I made some money, and lost a lifestyle. I don't think of myself as a winner there. There was plenty of signal. Given the havoc caused in so many people's lives across the world, and given the documentation now available, I don't think 'No one could have seen it coming' is a reasonable way to think about what happened.
    - davidivadavid 10y ago
      Hindsight is 20/20. From what I can tell, the Case-Schiller index is back around 2005 levels, even higher in some cities like LA. [1] Should people start selling their houses? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_villes.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_vi...
      - pjmorris 10y ago
        Could you point out the hindsight? What's different since 2005, in my perspective, it that it is now clear that there has been no political will to let bad loans go bad (evidenced by the government's responses since 2009). If you expect that to remain the case, it makes sense to not sell. If you expect that to change, and that house prices should go back to their historical income ratios, then it makes sense to sell.
dragonwriter 10y ago
There is considerable doubt whether a hiatus actually occurred, so that may not even be a miss.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903447 and marked it off-topic.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There was no haitus. That is a myth and falsehood you're propogating. http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-“hiatus”7639 http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-“hiatus”7639 The 2007-8 financial crisis is the most significant economic event of the preceeding 78 years. And it was virtually completely unanticipated by mainstream economists. Alan Greenspan, head of the world's most significant central bank, has conceeded his worldview was deeply flawed. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24pan... The Queen of England has asked why no one saw the credit crunch happening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3386353/The-Queen-asks-why-no-one-saw-the-credit-crunch-coming.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/338635... So: not only are you incorrect in your example of false predictions, but you're severely discounting the scope of economics' failure here.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Call it what you will - I know the word "hiatus" puts people in a tizzy - the predictions made in the 90's did not correspond to the graph of what actually happened. I have no idea how you would describe 2007-2008 as the most significant economic event of the previous years. It's a minor blip at most. Maybe it's just because I'm not in the US right now, but to me this seems far more significant: https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/062816carney-Elephant.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-... This is also something pretty significant, and predicted quite nicely by economics: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a9c9410604877c7529d1ea908a5c06e6 https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a9c9410604877c7529d1ea...
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Warming happened. It didn't happen where it was initially predicted. What are you claiming happened in terms of net atmospheric + ocean warmth? Here's US GDP, percent change from previous year, 1930 - 2016: https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table-4.pdf https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table... Wikipedia states that: The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Given that Wikipedia is not in fact a primary source, that's backed with a primary source. Oh, I'm sorry, four: ReferencesEdit "Two top economists agree 2009 worst financial crisis since great depression; risks increase if right steps are not taken". Reuters. 27 February 2009. Retrieved 10 November 2015. Eigner, Peter; Umlauft, Thomas S. (2015-07-01). "The Great Depression(s) of 1929–1933 and 2007–2009? Parallels, Differences and Policy Lessons". MTA-ELTE Crisis History Working Paper No. 2: Hungarian Academy of Science. SSRN 2612243Freely accessible. Eichengreen; O'Rourke. "A tale of two depressions: What do the new data tell us?". VoxEU.org. Retrieved 2016-02-22. Temin, Peter (2010-01-01). "The Great Recession and the Great Depression". National Bureau of Economic Research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%... Your graphs are utter non sequiturs here, and fail to make any coherent argument, let alone support it.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Warming happened. It didn't happen where it was initially predicted I'm glad we agree that the prediction was wrong. I guess ignore climate science since it made one bad prediction? (Note that I don't advocate this, but if we hold climate science to the same standard some good econ to, we should.) "Worst financial crisis" and "most significant economic effect" are not the same thing. The graphs I've cited illustrate events of far larger significance than the financial crisis, namely bringing billions out of poverty. That was due mainly to trade liberalization, as predicted by economics.

pjmorris 10y ago

The fact that the field ignored a gigantic signal until the world economy had nearly ground to a halt suggests, to me, that there's more going on than missing one prediction.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Since the signal was giant, I take it you made a lot of money by betting against it?
- pjmorris 10y ago
  Some. Not like Michael Burry. Starting with seeing what was going on in my South Florida neighborhood, and seeing Robert Schiller's graph of house prices vs. income in the NYT in 2005, I did a bunch of research, leading to selling one house in 2005, and another in 2007. I made money on both. Those buyers each later lost money when they sold the houses. On balance, I made some money, and lost a lifestyle. I don't think of myself as a winner there. There was plenty of signal. Given the havoc caused in so many people's lives across the world, and given the documentation now available, I don't think 'No one could have seen it coming' is a reasonable way to think about what happened.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    Hindsight is 20/20. From what I can tell, the Case-Schiller index is back around 2005 levels, even higher in some cities like LA. [1] Should people start selling their houses? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_villes.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_vi...
    - pjmorris 10y ago
      Could you point out the hindsight? What's different since 2005, in my perspective, it that it is now clear that there has been no political will to let bad loans go bad (evidenced by the government's responses since 2009). If you expect that to remain the case, it makes sense to not sell. If you expect that to change, and that house prices should go back to their historical income ratios, then it makes sense to sell.

dragonwriter 10y ago

There is considerable doubt whether a hiatus actually occurred, so that may not even be a miss.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903447 and marked it off-topic.