5 ms·

> > I'm told by a lot of experts that this is a bad idea > That probably means it's a good idea ;) This is just pure contrarianism. Experts also say it's a ba

by lgbr 8y ago

> > I'm told by a lot of experts that this is a bad idea > That probably means it's a good idea ;) This is just pure contrarianism. Experts also say it's a bad idea not to have clean drinking water, reliable electricity, and seatbelts in cars. And believe it or not, there is a huge amount of data on what kinds of policy in banking work and what don't, leading experts to conclusions like these. We're not talking about a few naysayers, either. The Swiss National Bank themselves, who will be put in charge of all lending if this is implemented, say this is a bad idea.

sgift 8y ago
> This is just pure contrarianism. Experts also say it's a bad idea not to have clean drinking water, reliable electricity, and seatbelts in cars. Difference: There's scientific evidence for the experts opinion in all these cases. Economics? That's more or less just crystal ball reading with a scientific shim on the top.
- roenxi 8y ago
  The line of thinking here deserves expounding. The discipline of economics is very important, but there needs to be some care about trusting the opinions of economists. The opinions of an economist are worth very much, because listening to them sets up situations were it is easy for someone with an economics degree to push an agenda. But economists do have a lot to offer with observations like "this is very similar to the [suchandsuch incident] of [1887] in [Somewhere]", which is worth listening to. The limitations that surround economic 'experiments' are so severe it should be treated more like history and less like physics. Thomas Piketty with Capital in the 21st century is a great example of what I'm thinking - more history and data than theory, but some theory to provide structure to the data. If science has a measure of quality, then that quality is the accuracy of its predictions. That ties in very closely to the ability to conduct experiments and collect accurate data. Economics as applied is a highly political process, which hampers both the perceptions and reality of how fair the experiments are.
  - bingoboingo33 8y ago
    The "discipline of economics" has no predictive power whatsoever. All it offers are "explanations" that can't be translated into actionable policies.
    - mseebach 8y ago
      Oh, it has plenty of predictive power, it's just not evenly distributed. When economists weigh in on contemporary politics, there are usually a lot of assumptions that doesn't quite make it into the soundbyte (and I don't want to pin this solely on the press, there are plenty of economists that are happy with this situation, as long as "their side" gets a boost). This, however, is the case for all members of the "political" sciences.
repolfx 8y ago
It's not actually. This book argues for the position that expert advice is wrong more often than not: https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us---Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1466016267&sr=8-5&keywords=wrong https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us---Scientists-relationship-co... The dubious reliability of much advice presented in the media as expert advice is one of the impending themes of our time. Expect skepticism about "experts" (defined as the sort of people who we tend to be told are experts when debating matters of politics, wealth or health) only to increase in the coming years. The Swiss National Bank themselves, who will be put in charge of all lending if this is implemented, say this is a bad idea The Overton window of acceptable thought in central banking is laughably narrow. Central bankers should really be the last people who are listened to on changes to how the monetary system works - they will always argue for minor changes to the status quo.
NullPrefix 8y ago
>Experts also say it's a bad idea not to have clean drinking water Using a single positive statement instead of a double negative would bring much needed clarity. >Experts also say it's a good idea to have clean drinking water, ...

by lgbr 8y ago

sgift 8y ago

> This is just pure contrarianism. Experts also say it's a bad idea not to have clean drinking water, reliable electricity, and seatbelts in cars. Difference: There's scientific evidence for the experts opinion in all these cases. Economics? That's more or less just crystal ball reading with a scientific shim on the top.

roenxi 8y ago
The line of thinking here deserves expounding. The discipline of economics is very important, but there needs to be some care about trusting the opinions of economists. The opinions of an economist are worth very much, because listening to them sets up situations were it is easy for someone with an economics degree to push an agenda. But economists do have a lot to offer with observations like "this is very similar to the [suchandsuch incident] of [1887] in [Somewhere]", which is worth listening to. The limitations that surround economic 'experiments' are so severe it should be treated more like history and less like physics. Thomas Piketty with Capital in the 21st century is a great example of what I'm thinking - more history and data than theory, but some theory to provide structure to the data. If science has a measure of quality, then that quality is the accuracy of its predictions. That ties in very closely to the ability to conduct experiments and collect accurate data. Economics as applied is a highly political process, which hampers both the perceptions and reality of how fair the experiments are.
- bingoboingo33 8y ago
  The "discipline of economics" has no predictive power whatsoever. All it offers are "explanations" that can't be translated into actionable policies.
  - mseebach 8y ago
    Oh, it has plenty of predictive power, it's just not evenly distributed. When economists weigh in on contemporary politics, there are usually a lot of assumptions that doesn't quite make it into the soundbyte (and I don't want to pin this solely on the press, there are plenty of economists that are happy with this situation, as long as "their side" gets a boost). This, however, is the case for all members of the "political" sciences.

repolfx 8y ago

It's not actually. This book argues for the position that expert advice is wrong more often than not: https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us---Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1466016267&sr=8-5&keywords=wrong https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us---Scientists-relationship-co... The dubious reliability of much advice presented in the media as expert advice is one of the impending themes of our time. Expect skepticism about "experts" (defined as the sort of people who we tend to be told are experts when debating matters of politics, wealth or health) only to increase in the coming years. The Swiss National Bank themselves, who will be put in charge of all lending if this is implemented, say this is a bad idea The Overton window of acceptable thought in central banking is laughably narrow. Central bankers should really be the last people who are listened to on changes to how the monetary system works - they will always argue for minor changes to the status quo.

NullPrefix 8y ago

>Experts also say it's a bad idea not to have clean drinking water Using a single positive statement instead of a double negative would bring much needed clarity. >Experts also say it's a good idea to have clean drinking water, ...