4 ms·

Coming from the Chicago School of Economics, specialized in voodoo theories that don't pan out in the real world this is pretty funny.

rsj_hn 8y ago
Pretty much. The Chicago school was the one pushing for financial deregulation, IIRC. I think the problem here is that we elect governments to solve collective problems, not personal problems. Collective problems arise from the interactions of large groups of people and they are generally intractable. Even if an economist tries to accurately model human behavior, it's really hard to do as you start adding more rational agents, and then you need a theory of production and a theory of expectations formation and all of a sudden what you are doing is just a toy to be tractable. So the zone where there is clear unambiguous science is very small, and it's generally not the zone of contention in politics. Stuff like "don't swallow arsenic" -- it doesn't really help us to govern or solve any of our political questions. So if we can't use science to show us how to organize ourselves, the debate turns to meta-approaches which are basically philosophies of how we approach problems. For example, a liberal might start with a Rousseau-type blank slate view of human nature and a various declaration of rights, both of which are basically statements of faith, and then try to think of some way that government can secure those rights through a period of debate, and then adopt whatever seems right to the people doing the debating, even if it means overturning long established customs. A conservative might go -- woah, there is hidden information in customs and traditions, which we may not appreciate (it's hidden) but, as an article of faith, the fact that these customs have lasted so long means that they are probably useful for _something_, and I doubt your ability to think of every unintended consequence of your policy, so I'm going to oppose it, and instead suggest you do something much smaller, as a pilot, over here for a generation, and then see what happens. And a libertarian might be led to say, "Your proposal infringes on my personal liberties, and thus, as an article of faith, must lead to bad outcomes." Etc. So the real debates we have are actually methodological debates given that we are working under imperfect information and limited knowledge about how complex interacting social systems work. Saying "we should use more science" is vacuous B.S. What we need is a better functioning public policy discourse that supports more course corrections, allows more people to air their views, and eliminates certain known distortions, like the influence of big money groups on campaigns. That's a hell of a lot more useful than pretending that scientists can be politicians or that politicians should be scientists.
- fein 8y ago
  We need more people like yourself sowing discourse on HN. Good read, and great take on the current stream of consciousness.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I agree that a lot of policy decision are value judgements and can't be fully explained by scientific approaches. But I definitely would like to see more hard numbers in political discourse. For example, what was the effect of previous tax cuts that increased deficits? Just put out the numbers: government revenue, business investment and so on. At least people (maybe) could have a rational foundation for their opinions. But I guess I am asking too much...
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    I was horrified at the business tax cuts that we recently passed, and I was sure they wouldn't result in any real benefits for investment. But, to me, that's more of an example of money in politics and money having a big loudspeaker rather than "more science needed". Moreover, I don't think that people who voted for Trump, voted for him because they favored corporate tax cuts, but I think it was more of a protest vote. Of course, I could be wrong, but the problem is the outsized influence of lobbyists and the wealthy in our political system -- that was a Koch brothers job. I don't think conservatives love the Koch brothers, to be honest. Let's remember "science" was how the economists pushed through all the banking de-regulation and liberalization of international capital flows which I am so opposed to, as well as other disastrous reforms. For example, the sadism against Greece in the EU was led by PhDs, and many PhDs pushed for more austerity. So, for me, "more science" isn't the solution, but something like public financing of campaigns might be a better solution. I think the skepticism of technocrats is quite healthy.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      I guess I would like to see more data and less opinion. Especially in economics.
refurb 8y ago
Compared to what? Other economic schools of theory that worked out exactly as predicted?

rsj_hn 8y ago

Pretty much. The Chicago school was the one pushing for financial deregulation, IIRC. I think the problem here is that we elect governments to solve collective problems, not personal problems. Collective problems arise from the interactions of large groups of people and they are generally intractable. Even if an economist tries to accurately model human behavior, it's really hard to do as you start adding more rational agents, and then you need a theory of production and a theory of expectations formation and all of a sudden what you are doing is just a toy to be tractable. So the zone where there is clear unambiguous science is very small, and it's generally not the zone of contention in politics. Stuff like "don't swallow arsenic" -- it doesn't really help us to govern or solve any of our political questions. So if we can't use science to show us how to organize ourselves, the debate turns to meta-approaches which are basically philosophies of how we approach problems. For example, a liberal might start with a Rousseau-type blank slate view of human nature and a various declaration of rights, both of which are basically statements of faith, and then try to think of some way that government can secure those rights through a period of debate, and then adopt whatever seems right to the people doing the debating, even if it means overturning long established customs. A conservative might go -- woah, there is hidden information in customs and traditions, which we may not appreciate (it's hidden) but, as an article of faith, the fact that these customs have lasted so long means that they are probably useful for _something_, and I doubt your ability to think of every unintended consequence of your policy, so I'm going to oppose it, and instead suggest you do something much smaller, as a pilot, over here for a generation, and then see what happens. And a libertarian might be led to say, "Your proposal infringes on my personal liberties, and thus, as an article of faith, must lead to bad outcomes." Etc. So the real debates we have are actually methodological debates given that we are working under imperfect information and limited knowledge about how complex interacting social systems work. Saying "we should use more science" is vacuous B.S. What we need is a better functioning public policy discourse that supports more course corrections, allows more people to air their views, and eliminates certain known distortions, like the influence of big money groups on campaigns. That's a hell of a lot more useful than pretending that scientists can be politicians or that politicians should be scientists.

fein 8y ago
We need more people like yourself sowing discourse on HN. Good read, and great take on the current stream of consciousness.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I agree that a lot of policy decision are value judgements and can't be fully explained by scientific approaches. But I definitely would like to see more hard numbers in political discourse. For example, what was the effect of previous tax cuts that increased deficits? Just put out the numbers: government revenue, business investment and so on. At least people (maybe) could have a rational foundation for their opinions. But I guess I am asking too much...
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  I was horrified at the business tax cuts that we recently passed, and I was sure they wouldn't result in any real benefits for investment. But, to me, that's more of an example of money in politics and money having a big loudspeaker rather than "more science needed". Moreover, I don't think that people who voted for Trump, voted for him because they favored corporate tax cuts, but I think it was more of a protest vote. Of course, I could be wrong, but the problem is the outsized influence of lobbyists and the wealthy in our political system -- that was a Koch brothers job. I don't think conservatives love the Koch brothers, to be honest. Let's remember "science" was how the economists pushed through all the banking de-regulation and liberalization of international capital flows which I am so opposed to, as well as other disastrous reforms. For example, the sadism against Greece in the EU was led by PhDs, and many PhDs pushed for more austerity. So, for me, "more science" isn't the solution, but something like public financing of campaigns might be a better solution. I think the skepticism of technocrats is quite healthy.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I guess I would like to see more data and less opinion. Especially in economics.

refurb 8y ago

Compared to what? Other economic schools of theory that worked out exactly as predicted?