4 ms·

For me the sad part of "economics" and their number trickeries is the unsustainable usage of natural resources. I could argue all they really did is inflate cur

For me the sad part of "economics" and their number trickeries is the unsustainable usage of natural resources. I could argue all they really did is inflate current value and allow "loaning" from future resources to boost the current economy. Global warming in this context is the (possibly too late) push back in this systems equilibrium.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
In every age those in power attracted charlatans and philosophers, to declare the kings work and world the best world there is, his doing the only plausible way and the attempt to errect a hypothesis heresy. Communism at least made itself testable, it prognosed and proposed- and thus it could fail and be held against attempts to revive it unchanged. Economics never even got to this stage- they shirk simulations and hard data for the kings funds could cease, if they would propose testable scenarios or scenario trees. Economics im afraid to admit, is less of a science, then some ideologys, who willingly submitted themselves to the killing fields of the experimental method.
- lucisferre 8y ago
  It's ironic you gave communism as a counter example to power attracting charlatans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
- Earloop 8y ago
  Poor choice words I suppose - I'd much rather be submitted to the "killing fields of the experimental method" than the actual "killing fields" of a Communist regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_Killing_Fields
mr_overalls 8y ago
Regard for natural resources is actually a pretty mainstream idea in economics. The concepts of tragedy of the commons, public goods, pollution as a negative externality, etc. are quite well-established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
- tim333 8y ago
  There's kind of an issue with discount rates though in that if you say a dollar today is worth say $1.05 next year it implies you should discount global warming damage a couple of centuries ahead by a factor of over 17000. But I'm not sure that's reasonable.
- leroman 8y ago
  I'm far from knowledgeable on the technicalities of economics (I'm in the software engineering business), but observing the dialogue that takes place between economists and seeing the results, its hard to accept economists actually make effort to factor this in, my experience is that they are only reacting to public outcry. I find it hard to believe they even have the tools to factor environmental impact into their models. (don't tell me factoring damage due to sea rise as a "tool".)

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

In every age those in power attracted charlatans and philosophers, to declare the kings work and world the best world there is, his doing the only plausible way and the attempt to errect a hypothesis heresy. Communism at least made itself testable, it prognosed and proposed- and thus it could fail and be held against attempts to revive it unchanged. Economics never even got to this stage- they shirk simulations and hard data for the kings funds could cease, if they would propose testable scenarios or scenario trees. Economics im afraid to admit, is less of a science, then some ideologys, who willingly submitted themselves to the killing fields of the experimental method.

lucisferre 8y ago
It's ironic you gave communism as a counter example to power attracting charlatans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Earloop 8y ago
Poor choice words I suppose - I'd much rather be submitted to the "killing fields of the experimental method" than the actual "killing fields" of a Communist regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_Killing_Fields

mr_overalls 8y ago

Regard for natural resources is actually a pretty mainstream idea in economics. The concepts of tragedy of the commons, public goods, pollution as a negative externality, etc. are quite well-established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

tim333 8y ago
There's kind of an issue with discount rates though in that if you say a dollar today is worth say $1.05 next year it implies you should discount global warming damage a couple of centuries ahead by a factor of over 17000. But I'm not sure that's reasonable.
leroman 8y ago
I'm far from knowledgeable on the technicalities of economics (I'm in the software engineering business), but observing the dialogue that takes place between economists and seeing the results, its hard to accept economists actually make effort to factor this in, my experience is that they are only reacting to public outcry. I find it hard to believe they even have the tools to factor environmental impact into their models. (don't tell me factoring damage due to sea rise as a "tool".)