4 ms·

You're so understated!! It's troubling to you. Wow. I tend to celebrate such fair, intellectual posts! But in this case… consumption as economic indicator isn'

You're so understated!! It's troubling to you. Wow. I tend to celebrate such fair, intellectual posts! But in this case… consumption as economic indicator isn't just troubling, it's horrific. Our economic measures are not just mediocre, but actually destructively backwards. They are measures that actively push us to catastrophes, unhappiness, destruction… GDP etc. would triple instantly if we just paid our neighbors to do one another's housework.

contingencies 8y ago
The two main problems with classic models of economics are: (1) the tragedy of the commons: the tendency of the environment, biology, sustainability, public space and other shared concerns to be ignored until monetized/privatized to the general detriment; and (2) the false 'equilibrium' analogy used to justify supply and demand with newtonian physics (and to a lesser extent, to wrap the whole thing in a shroud of self-serving ivory tower rationalism): needless to say there is no such equilibrium - market behavior at the macro level is actually driven by mass psychology. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [2] https://www.georgesoros.com/2012/06/02/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2012/06/02/remarks_at_the_festiv... Edit: I agree with you. If you'd dropped the lead sentences you wouldn't have been downvoted. HN as a whole seems to react badly to hyperbole, but positively to unjustified, broad, faux-intellectual claims. Haha :)
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Hah! It's SO ironic in this case. :) My hyperbolic-seeming opening line was actually emphasizing that it's not even hyperbole. AND I CAN'T EDIT to emphasize that I was NOT being sarcastic! (I realize now people probably guessed I was sarcastic when I was actually sincere). The classic models of economics really are that bad, no exaggeration. The post I was replying to was both correct and truly understated. I think the tragedy of the commons is just an example of a whole class of similar phenomena that exist and that classic economic models ignore. And you're plainly right about the "mass psychology" macro-level stuff, but that's also not the whole picture. The core issue is that macro level phenomena are real. So much economics today actually claims that macro is nothing more than aggregate micro (and they get micro wrong too, with simplistic understanding of psychology when considered at all and so much else). I heard this analogy from a friend (don't know the original source though): assuming we can understand macro by studying micro is like saying we can understand the behavior of a gas by simply tracking the isolated locations and movements of single molecules!

contingencies 8y ago

The two main problems with classic models of economics are: (1) the tragedy of the commons: the tendency of the environment, biology, sustainability, public space and other shared concerns to be ignored until monetized/privatized to the general detriment; and (2) the false 'equilibrium' analogy used to justify supply and demand with newtonian physics (and to a lesser extent, to wrap the whole thing in a shroud of self-serving ivory tower rationalism): needless to say there is no such equilibrium - market behavior at the macro level is actually driven by mass psychology. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [2] https://www.georgesoros.com/2012/06/02/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2012/06/02/remarks_at_the_festiv... Edit: I agree with you. If you'd dropped the lead sentences you wouldn't have been downvoted. HN as a whole seems to react badly to hyperbole, but positively to unjustified, broad, faux-intellectual claims. Haha :)

quadrangle 8y ago
Hah! It's SO ironic in this case. :) My hyperbolic-seeming opening line was actually emphasizing that it's not even hyperbole. AND I CAN'T EDIT to emphasize that I was NOT being sarcastic! (I realize now people probably guessed I was sarcastic when I was actually sincere). The classic models of economics really are that bad, no exaggeration. The post I was replying to was both correct and truly understated. I think the tragedy of the commons is just an example of a whole class of similar phenomena that exist and that classic economic models ignore. And you're plainly right about the "mass psychology" macro-level stuff, but that's also not the whole picture. The core issue is that macro level phenomena are real. So much economics today actually claims that macro is nothing more than aggregate micro (and they get micro wrong too, with simplistic understanding of psychology when considered at all and so much else). I heard this analogy from a friend (don't know the original source though): assuming we can understand macro by studying micro is like saying we can understand the behavior of a gas by simply tracking the isolated locations and movements of single molecules!