7 ms·

There is a difference between being skeptical of scientifically-arrived-at conclusions (which is healthy and I don't share your opinion that people are largely

There is a difference between being skeptical of scientifically-arrived-at conclusions (which is healthy and I don't share your opinion that people are largely "castigated" for that) and explicitly ignoring science, and experts in general, based purely on the fact that their conclusions conflict with one's socio-political convictions, which I think is a real problem that people may feel castigated for falling into (which of course doesn't help). If anything has the ring of religious superiority to it, it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons.

pdonis 8y ago
> it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons Well, there's just as much of a trend of claiming your position is "science" when it isn't, simply for political reasons. For example, by any reasonable standards, economics is not a science; yet people who question the current orthodoxy in economics, for example by questioning whether having the Federal Reserve print money is really a good idea, are routinely castigated. Ron Paul became a nonstarter as a Presidential candidate for precisely this reason.
- agent008t 8y ago
  The problem is the level of debate in society in general, and in particular when it comes to political economy. The debate is basically non-existent. You don't get it in Congress/Senate/Parliament. You don't get it on the news channels. You sometimes - very rarely - still get it on the radio. I want to see two people with opposing views debate a single issue for 2-3 hours, without being allowed to evade answering a question. Would happily pay a subscription fee to get that.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    I agree the level of debate in our society is typically awful. However, in many cases, better debate won't fix the problem, because the problem in many cases is not that the "right" views aren't getting air time. The problem in many cases is that we can't even do controlled experiments in the domain, so our understanding is very limited and we simply don't know enough about the domain to give useful input to public policy decisions. For example, I think that's true of economics; nobody knows enough about economics to give useful input about most public policies.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Economics should be fact based at least. I personally would call it a science but a soft one from there being so many variables and interpretations. It does produce some hard facts - mostly in the form of "what not to do" We already know that hyperinflation relative to growth is a way to ruin an economy quickly for instance. Similarly the issue with federal reserve denialism is that they have rhetoric but not much understanding about economic history. Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. Essentially saying you are against the federal reserve period is like admitting you are a homeopath - it goes beyond a difference of supportable opinion and into a sign of incompetence. I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
  - tropo 8y ago
    Precious metal is a terrible choice because inflation is then determined by the random occurrence of discoveries of new mines and new mining technology. The federal reserve is a terrible choice because unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agenda are given the power to juice or crash the economy, and they appear to threaten/reward presidents with this power. Just printing money is a terrible choice because the executive can just run the presses instead of taxing, and thereby cause hyperinflation. The USA has tried all 3 methods. That last one has the most potential I think. It could be restricted to reduce misbehavior, perhaps with a time delay before changes take effect.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. I'm not sure either part of this is true. The evidence of the 20th century doesn't give much support to the thesis that fiat money helps prevent wars. Nor is it clear that a fixed, or at any rate slowly growing, quantity of money acts as a brake on economic growth. Current economic orthodoxy says it does, but current economic orthodoxy doesn't make good predictions. > I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation". You wouldn't need a central bank to implement a policy of "keep the total quantity of money in some defined relationship to the total size of the economy". In fact you wouldn't want a central bank to implement that policy, because a central bank wouldn't give newly printed money to everyone in the economy in proportion to the amount of money they currently hold, which is the only fair way to print money.

pdonis 8y ago

> it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons Well, there's just as much of a trend of claiming your position is "science" when it isn't, simply for political reasons. For example, by any reasonable standards, economics is not a science; yet people who question the current orthodoxy in economics, for example by questioning whether having the Federal Reserve print money is really a good idea, are routinely castigated. Ron Paul became a nonstarter as a Presidential candidate for precisely this reason.

agent008t 8y ago
The problem is the level of debate in society in general, and in particular when it comes to political economy. The debate is basically non-existent. You don't get it in Congress/Senate/Parliament. You don't get it on the news channels. You sometimes - very rarely - still get it on the radio. I want to see two people with opposing views debate a single issue for 2-3 hours, without being allowed to evade answering a question. Would happily pay a subscription fee to get that.
- pdonis 8y ago
  I agree the level of debate in our society is typically awful. However, in many cases, better debate won't fix the problem, because the problem in many cases is not that the "right" views aren't getting air time. The problem in many cases is that we can't even do controlled experiments in the domain, so our understanding is very limited and we simply don't know enough about the domain to give useful input to public policy decisions. For example, I think that's true of economics; nobody knows enough about economics to give useful input about most public policies.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Economics should be fact based at least. I personally would call it a science but a soft one from there being so many variables and interpretations. It does produce some hard facts - mostly in the form of "what not to do" We already know that hyperinflation relative to growth is a way to ruin an economy quickly for instance. Similarly the issue with federal reserve denialism is that they have rhetoric but not much understanding about economic history. Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. Essentially saying you are against the federal reserve period is like admitting you are a homeopath - it goes beyond a difference of supportable opinion and into a sign of incompetence. I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
- tropo 8y ago
  Precious metal is a terrible choice because inflation is then determined by the random occurrence of discoveries of new mines and new mining technology. The federal reserve is a terrible choice because unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agenda are given the power to juice or crash the economy, and they appear to threaten/reward presidents with this power. Just printing money is a terrible choice because the executive can just run the presses instead of taxing, and thereby cause hyperinflation. The USA has tried all 3 methods. That last one has the most potential I think. It could be restricted to reduce misbehavior, perhaps with a time delay before changes take effect.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. I'm not sure either part of this is true. The evidence of the 20th century doesn't give much support to the thesis that fiat money helps prevent wars. Nor is it clear that a fixed, or at any rate slowly growing, quantity of money acts as a brake on economic growth. Current economic orthodoxy says it does, but current economic orthodoxy doesn't make good predictions. > I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation". You wouldn't need a central bank to implement a policy of "keep the total quantity of money in some defined relationship to the total size of the economy". In fact you wouldn't want a central bank to implement that policy, because a central bank wouldn't give newly printed money to everyone in the economy in proportion to the amount of money they currently hold, which is the only fair way to print money.