5 ms·

> "First, let's assume the cow is a sphere". It is worse than that, because at least physics is validated by experimental data. Much of (macro in particular)

> "First, let's assume the cow is a sphere". It is worse than that, because at least physics is validated by experimental data. Much of (macro in particular) Economics is a set of axioms that are seldom predictive.

pm90 9y ago
And yet, people swear by them as though they have the same validity as physics. I never really understood that mentality.
- sfifs 9y ago
  That's because they're what people _believe_ - their politics - an act of faith not dissimilar from religion. The set of econ axioms people espouse demonstrates their own world view - what they stand for. In a previous age, these would be moral principles and social norms - now it's political beliefs.
  - pm90 9y ago
    This is an interesting point, and I've been giving this a great deal of thought. The United States is surprisingly religious for a developed Western Nation, and my theory is that if people can be brainwashed into accepting things "on faith", then that can be extended to other things as well, such as facts. Maybe that can explain the huge numbers of climate change deniers, anti-abortionists and other anti-intellectuals in the US?
  - specialist 9y ago
    Beliefs ~= identity. Cite "Democracy for Realists".
- sadfjhsdf66 9y ago
  Because the monopolies have exerted pressure on public education, including universities, to churn out advocates for the corporations bottom line. With no basis in reality, we've brainwashed people to believe the bottom lines of the elite are to be protected. That's the outcome sought of our educational system. It fascinates me how, on the one hand, we complain about how lazy people are. How much inducement the proles need. "Oh they're just lazy. Push em harder." If we need to push people that hard, perhaps "economy of effort" is built into the species. It's a weird cognitive dissonance. "They want something for nothing! But I want to maintain my elite status built upon your efforts!" But that challenges the basis of elite power. If we all quit producing for them, they lose. So we're "induced to produce" under the constraints they define: no food, shelter, healthcare.
  - pm90 9y ago
    This is unfortunately too close to the truth. One thing I would like to add though is that despite the fruits of labor accruing disproportionately to the elite, the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? So the system does work, and I wonder what would happen if it was changed to be more egalitarian....
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? By some measures, all of which fail to account for the fact that relative deprivation is a substantial source of experienced disutility.
      - pm90 9y ago
        Its true, but I'm not sure whether I would choose to be born in a Cholera ridden mid 1850's London or the Ghettos of Inner-City Houston today. We've solved some problems and now face others of course, but my question is whether the earlier problems were of a different kind...
    - danbruc 9y ago
      One thing I would like to add though is that despite the fruits of labor accruing disproportionately to the elite, the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? So the system does work [...] That really depends on the definition of »works«. If one is satisfied with the people doing the heavy lifting being a bit better off while a few overseeing everything are extremely better off, yes, then it works.
    - sadfjhsdf66 9y ago
      Sure, but that's not a unique byproduct to this system. In fact, I think an argument can be made that it's a designed byproduct. We could uplift many more, but we don't. A little bit of uplift, but not too much, or the wheels come off for the power brokers. There are a other systems that we have at least some historical evidence to show will produce even better outcomes for the majority. The problem is those are undermined almost as quickly as they are brought up. See post about brainwashing people to protect the bottom line. People point to places like Venezuela and USSR as examples of socialism not working, for example. While ignoring that both those states were not managed by the working class (as classical socialism typically calls for), but elite masters, their bank rollers, and external forces pushing them to abandon their ways for western capitalism (economic sanctions, cutting off access to necessary trade).
- rtx 9y ago
  Because roots of these theories are in Physics. Psychology > Biology > Chemistry > Physics.
theseatoms 9y ago
Yes. Macroeconomics is secular theology. The global economy is so vast and interconnected that basically none of the theory can be scientifically tested.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Apparently at Renaissance Technologies they love hiring astronomers because as an astronomer you are used to modelling systems that are completely beyond human scale based on data from observations that cannot be repeated. No one would argue that astronomy isn't a science. Traditional university macroeconomics is a different beast. Comparison with astrology is apt.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    It might have something to do with that the education for being an astronomer starts with years of postgraduate pure mathematics ...

pm90 9y ago

And yet, people swear by them as though they have the same validity as physics. I never really understood that mentality.

sfifs 9y ago
That's because they're what people _believe_ - their politics - an act of faith not dissimilar from religion. The set of econ axioms people espouse demonstrates their own world view - what they stand for. In a previous age, these would be moral principles and social norms - now it's political beliefs.
- pm90 9y ago
  This is an interesting point, and I've been giving this a great deal of thought. The United States is surprisingly religious for a developed Western Nation, and my theory is that if people can be brainwashed into accepting things "on faith", then that can be extended to other things as well, such as facts. Maybe that can explain the huge numbers of climate change deniers, anti-abortionists and other anti-intellectuals in the US?
- specialist 9y ago
  Beliefs ~= identity. Cite "Democracy for Realists".
sadfjhsdf66 9y ago
Because the monopolies have exerted pressure on public education, including universities, to churn out advocates for the corporations bottom line. With no basis in reality, we've brainwashed people to believe the bottom lines of the elite are to be protected. That's the outcome sought of our educational system. It fascinates me how, on the one hand, we complain about how lazy people are. How much inducement the proles need. "Oh they're just lazy. Push em harder." If we need to push people that hard, perhaps "economy of effort" is built into the species. It's a weird cognitive dissonance. "They want something for nothing! But I want to maintain my elite status built upon your efforts!" But that challenges the basis of elite power. If we all quit producing for them, they lose. So we're "induced to produce" under the constraints they define: no food, shelter, healthcare.
- pm90 9y ago
  This is unfortunately too close to the truth. One thing I would like to add though is that despite the fruits of labor accruing disproportionately to the elite, the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? So the system does work, and I wonder what would happen if it was changed to be more egalitarian....
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? By some measures, all of which fail to account for the fact that relative deprivation is a substantial source of experienced disutility.
    - pm90 9y ago
      Its true, but I'm not sure whether I would choose to be born in a Cholera ridden mid 1850's London or the Ghettos of Inner-City Houston today. We've solved some problems and now face others of course, but my question is whether the earlier problems were of a different kind...
  - danbruc 9y ago
    One thing I would like to add though is that despite the fruits of labor accruing disproportionately to the elite, the system has managed to lift up everyone else as well, right? So the system does work [...] That really depends on the definition of »works«. If one is satisfied with the people doing the heavy lifting being a bit better off while a few overseeing everything are extremely better off, yes, then it works.
  - sadfjhsdf66 9y ago
    Sure, but that's not a unique byproduct to this system. In fact, I think an argument can be made that it's a designed byproduct. We could uplift many more, but we don't. A little bit of uplift, but not too much, or the wheels come off for the power brokers. There are a other systems that we have at least some historical evidence to show will produce even better outcomes for the majority. The problem is those are undermined almost as quickly as they are brought up. See post about brainwashing people to protect the bottom line. People point to places like Venezuela and USSR as examples of socialism not working, for example. While ignoring that both those states were not managed by the working class (as classical socialism typically calls for), but elite masters, their bank rollers, and external forces pushing them to abandon their ways for western capitalism (economic sanctions, cutting off access to necessary trade).
rtx 9y ago
Because roots of these theories are in Physics. Psychology > Biology > Chemistry > Physics.

theseatoms 9y ago

Yes. Macroeconomics is secular theology. The global economy is so vast and interconnected that basically none of the theory can be scientifically tested.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
Apparently at Renaissance Technologies they love hiring astronomers because as an astronomer you are used to modelling systems that are completely beyond human scale based on data from observations that cannot be repeated. No one would argue that astronomy isn't a science. Traditional university macroeconomics is a different beast. Comparison with astrology is apt.
- candiodari 9y ago
  It might have something to do with that the education for being an astronomer starts with years of postgraduate pure mathematics ...