4 ms·

This is great, it's one of those ideas I'll come back to later and think about again, applying to different stuff. Economics is such a tragedy, because on the

This is great, it's one of those ideas I'll come back to later and think about again, applying to different stuff. Economics is such a tragedy, because on the one hand it's so elegant and satisfying, but on the other it seems sufficiently incomplete to be considered broken. Maybe it's the newtonian version of something.

xapata 8y ago
You mean current methods will be replaced by more nuanced and accurate methods. Not that economics will be replaced. That'd be like physics being replaced instead of the methods changing. Newtonian methods had known flaws before relativity replaced them and quantum mechanics expanded that. Current economic methods also have known flaws. We're just waiting for Einstein.
- menacingly 8y ago
  Correct, of course, and thanks for giving me the wording I'll use instead of mine next time :)
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> it's one of those ideas I'll come back to later and think about again, applying to different stuff The general form of the idea is called Simpson's Paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox The application to the beer example is that as high-cost beers displace low-cost beers from the market, the cost-per-beer-sold rises even as the price of low-cost beer and the price of high-cost beer are both falling.
cirgue 8y ago
> Economics is such a tragedy, because on the one hand it's so elegant and satisfying, but on the other it seems sufficiently incomplete to be considered broken. The study of economics is as much a framework for asking questions as it is for answering them. National-level economic systems are inherently to complicated to do meaningful experiments on, so we don't get to use the tools we normally do to find our way. Economics isn't broken, but the view of economics as a sister to physics is.
- menacingly 8y ago
  I was being generous hoping it's on a similar path to physics, because even in earlier stages physics produced something other than fascinating thought experiments and directly conflicting advice.

xapata 8y ago

You mean current methods will be replaced by more nuanced and accurate methods. Not that economics will be replaced. That'd be like physics being replaced instead of the methods changing. Newtonian methods had known flaws before relativity replaced them and quantum mechanics expanded that. Current economic methods also have known flaws. We're just waiting for Einstein.

menacingly 8y ago
Correct, of course, and thanks for giving me the wording I'll use instead of mine next time :)

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> it's one of those ideas I'll come back to later and think about again, applying to different stuff The general form of the idea is called Simpson's Paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox The application to the beer example is that as high-cost beers displace low-cost beers from the market, the cost-per-beer-sold rises even as the price of low-cost beer and the price of high-cost beer are both falling.

cirgue 8y ago

> Economics is such a tragedy, because on the one hand it's so elegant and satisfying, but on the other it seems sufficiently incomplete to be considered broken. The study of economics is as much a framework for asking questions as it is for answering them. National-level economic systems are inherently to complicated to do meaningful experiments on, so we don't get to use the tools we normally do to find our way. Economics isn't broken, but the view of economics as a sister to physics is.

menacingly 8y ago
I was being generous hoping it's on a similar path to physics, because even in earlier stages physics produced something other than fascinating thought experiments and directly conflicting advice.