3 ms·

What I know for sure does not matter in economics is what people say matters. It's like Palaeontology, a fascinating study of the past with little implications

by avip 8y ago

What I know for sure does not matter in economics is what people say matters. It's like Palaeontology, a fascinating study of the past with little implications for our future. debt does not matter, until one day it will.

platz 8y ago
, which is an entirely value-free assertion from which no understanding can be derived
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think what he was saying is that past successes are not necessarily indicative of future successes. I do think this simple observation can be used to derive understanding. I'd like to increase the volume of my balloon as much as possible. I blow it up a little bit. It increases a little bit. I blow into it hard. It substantially increases. I keep blowing and it invariably keeps getting larger and larger. There is an absolutely perfect and undeniable correlation between how much I blow into that balloon and the measured volume. In fact it's not even a correlation, it is a clear causal relationship. This leads to an empirical conclusion that is completely wrong. In our society those that say to keep blowing are going to end up succeeding. Not only do their predictions work out, and quite profitably so, but they're also optimistic and promise untold volumes to come. The understanding would be to consider that in fields where meaningful tests cannot be readily performed, empiricism should never replace logic. And illogical but empirically supported concepts should be treated with extreme skepticism. Logic can be flawed and proven to be wrong. Empiricism can be equally flawed, yet the danger is that it can also be impossible to prove wrong until you're left picking up pieces of rubber.
jfoutz 8y ago
Palaeontology drives a lot of fossil fuel discovery. Perhaps not so important over the next 100 years, but I believe it was pretty significant over the last 100 years. With regard to economics, deflation seems bad. Really bad. I (think) I get your point. I think you’re expecting physics results from economics. Econ usually says weak things in a limited context, like weather. Yes. Debt matters. I would be happier with less of it. But in our current context, for a little while, it’s not that important. It’s a fire 300 miles away. The fire could be a really big personal problem surprisingly quickly, but today the biggest worry is housing and feeding the refugees. It’s a strained analogy. Hopefully it gets the point across.

by avip 8y ago

platz 8y ago

, which is an entirely value-free assertion from which no understanding can be derived

rjf72 8y ago
I think what he was saying is that past successes are not necessarily indicative of future successes. I do think this simple observation can be used to derive understanding. I'd like to increase the volume of my balloon as much as possible. I blow it up a little bit. It increases a little bit. I blow into it hard. It substantially increases. I keep blowing and it invariably keeps getting larger and larger. There is an absolutely perfect and undeniable correlation between how much I blow into that balloon and the measured volume. In fact it's not even a correlation, it is a clear causal relationship. This leads to an empirical conclusion that is completely wrong. In our society those that say to keep blowing are going to end up succeeding. Not only do their predictions work out, and quite profitably so, but they're also optimistic and promise untold volumes to come. The understanding would be to consider that in fields where meaningful tests cannot be readily performed, empiricism should never replace logic. And illogical but empirically supported concepts should be treated with extreme skepticism. Logic can be flawed and proven to be wrong. Empiricism can be equally flawed, yet the danger is that it can also be impossible to prove wrong until you're left picking up pieces of rubber.

jfoutz 8y ago

Palaeontology drives a lot of fossil fuel discovery. Perhaps not so important over the next 100 years, but I believe it was pretty significant over the last 100 years. With regard to economics, deflation seems bad. Really bad. I (think) I get your point. I think you’re expecting physics results from economics. Econ usually says weak things in a limited context, like weather. Yes. Debt matters. I would be happier with less of it. But in our current context, for a little while, it’s not that important. It’s a fire 300 miles away. The fire could be a really big personal problem surprisingly quickly, but today the biggest worry is housing and feeding the refugees. It’s a strained analogy. Hopefully it gets the point across.