3 ms·

Not to be insulting, but you sound like exactly the kind of person the GP was talking about. “Outsider who rejects the field’s orthodoxy” comes across more like

Not to be insulting, but you sound like exactly the kind of person the GP was talking about. “Outsider who rejects the field’s orthodoxy” comes across more like a crank than anything else.

IncRnd 8y ago
Except that he is correct and even gave the example of why he is correct.
pjkundert 8y ago
Well, the practitioners of the field of Economics reject Hazlitt and Taleb as cranks, so I’d take their opinions with a grain of salt.
- MagnumOpus 8y ago
  Taleb is not a crank, he is an obnoxious snake oil salesman - packages well-known truism as wisdom invented by himself, slates the orthodoxy, collects lots of money for his hedge fund, then loses it all and earns millions writing books about how all the other hedgies who actually made money are "doing it wrong".
salawat 8y ago
Have you ever been stuck in a room full of really smart people? It can be a very dangerous place to be. Smart people are EXCEEDINGLY good at rationalizing just about anything. You can get stuck in a state where your discourse becomes like an Ouruboros, nice and circular, never getting anywhere. Occasionally you have to question whether or not your fundamental assumptions are still valid. For most of our country's history, even WITHOUT the post 80's economic zeitgeist to guide us, we did just fine treating worker's with respect, and a fair wage. We have transformed in the span of 30 years years into a highly polarized, economically fractured, industrially poor nation. Our political discourse has gotten worse and worse, and trust is at such an all-time low that we're doubting not just our government's capacity to lead and protect us, but also each other. I've met people from just about every side of the socio-economic spectrum, and even a few of the last remnants of the "Greatest Generation", who LIVED through the Great Depression. My thoughts have thus far been convincing to most with sufficient time to elucidate them. Something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. I'm not saying ALL economists and their economics are Quacks. I'm even somewhat fond of Taleb, if only because he is one of the few who had the courage to even DOUBT. The field, however, is due for a reckoning, and a reconciliation with reality,and the Unknown unknowns. As I stated in a previous post, there are too many structural problems built into the way our system works. No natural system can stay cohesive under conditions demanding continual growth in an environment with finite resources. It doesn't happen. Ever. Computing, biology, physics, mathematics, control theory, chemistry, anthropolgy, politics, logistics, and most importantly HISTORY has shown over and over again that while periods of massive development and growth DO happen, eventually, the inputs required to sustain it or the excessive outputs it generates overwhelms the operating environment's capacity to supply\absorb it/them. Something has to give. I'm not willing to auction off the only legacy I have worth passing down for the next generation for short term gains. Which is increasingly the direction we as a nation seem to be developing toward economically. It's my opinion, and a verifiable fact to anyone willing to even make a halfway credible attempt at tracing the steps that have led us to where we are now, analyzing the forces that were at play, and taking the time to try to LEARN from the trials and successes of the past. Don't just take my word for it. DO some research. Convince yourself. Don't leave it to someone else. I don't want a damn person to follow me on faith. Convince yourself, and go whatever direction you desire, but for the love of all that's holy, be honest. The info is out there. I'm willing to entertain my theories are wrong, as they almost certainly are, that's why it's called research. Why should the field of economics not be willing to entertain the same? Anyway. Certifiable crank signing off.

Not to be insulting, but you sound like exactly the kind of person the GP was talking about. “Outsider who rejects the field’s orthodoxy” comes across more like a crank than anything else.

IncRnd 8y ago

Except that he is correct and even gave the example of why he is correct.

pjkundert 8y ago

Well, the practitioners of the field of Economics reject Hazlitt and Taleb as cranks, so I’d take their opinions with a grain of salt.

MagnumOpus 8y ago
Taleb is not a crank, he is an obnoxious snake oil salesman - packages well-known truism as wisdom invented by himself, slates the orthodoxy, collects lots of money for his hedge fund, then loses it all and earns millions writing books about how all the other hedgies who actually made money are "doing it wrong".

salawat 8y ago

Have you ever been stuck in a room full of really smart people? It can be a very dangerous place to be. Smart people are EXCEEDINGLY good at rationalizing just about anything. You can get stuck in a state where your discourse becomes like an Ouruboros, nice and circular, never getting anywhere. Occasionally you have to question whether or not your fundamental assumptions are still valid. For most of our country's history, even WITHOUT the post 80's economic zeitgeist to guide us, we did just fine treating worker's with respect, and a fair wage. We have transformed in the span of 30 years years into a highly polarized, economically fractured, industrially poor nation. Our political discourse has gotten worse and worse, and trust is at such an all-time low that we're doubting not just our government's capacity to lead and protect us, but also each other. I've met people from just about every side of the socio-economic spectrum, and even a few of the last remnants of the "Greatest Generation", who LIVED through the Great Depression. My thoughts have thus far been convincing to most with sufficient time to elucidate them. Something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. I'm not saying ALL economists and their economics are Quacks. I'm even somewhat fond of Taleb, if only because he is one of the few who had the courage to even DOUBT. The field, however, is due for a reckoning, and a reconciliation with reality,and the Unknown unknowns. As I stated in a previous post, there are too many structural problems built into the way our system works. No natural system can stay cohesive under conditions demanding continual growth in an environment with finite resources. It doesn't happen. Ever. Computing, biology, physics, mathematics, control theory, chemistry, anthropolgy, politics, logistics, and most importantly HISTORY has shown over and over again that while periods of massive development and growth DO happen, eventually, the inputs required to sustain it or the excessive outputs it generates overwhelms the operating environment's capacity to supply\absorb it/them. Something has to give. I'm not willing to auction off the only legacy I have worth passing down for the next generation for short term gains. Which is increasingly the direction we as a nation seem to be developing toward economically. It's my opinion, and a verifiable fact to anyone willing to even make a halfway credible attempt at tracing the steps that have led us to where we are now, analyzing the forces that were at play, and taking the time to try to LEARN from the trials and successes of the past. Don't just take my word for it. DO some research. Convince yourself. Don't leave it to someone else. I don't want a damn person to follow me on faith. Convince yourself, and go whatever direction you desire, but for the love of all that's holy, be honest. The info is out there. I'm willing to entertain my theories are wrong, as they almost certainly are, that's why it's called research. Why should the field of economics not be willing to entertain the same? Anyway. Certifiable crank signing off.