3 ms·

What a terrific article, certainly the only one I've seen to look at the science of this - and to point out that the ship didn't just hit sand: that section of

What a terrific article, certainly the only one I've seen to look at the science of this - and to point out that the ship didn't just hit sand: that section of the canal is lined - it went through "protective" boulders to reach that sand. Favourite quote: Sailors talk about hydrodynamics the way CEOs talk about macroeconomics: they either treat it with mystical reverence, or they claim to understand it and are wrong. Unlike with macroeconomics, though, if you know what you’re doing you can test the propositions of hydrodynamics on actual, physical models in a lab. As in: you build little boats and then you drag them through the water, in a towing tank. Hydrodynamics is what a five-year old would do, if a five-year old had a PhD.

p10jkle 6y ago
Of course, you can test macroeconomics with a water tank too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC
- lupire 6y ago
  But hydrodynamics experiments actual give correct answers, because physics empirically matches physical theory, but economics doesn't.
  - astrange 6y ago
    There's empirical economics now. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/sum... I mean, the macro men are still out there, their predictions are still always wrong, and they still refuse to admit it. But at least we're starting to not listen to them.
- sceadu 6y ago
  See also: https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Glooper https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Glooper
- nroets 6y ago
  That model predates important advances like Rational Expectations. Even in the 1980s the Fed under Paul Volcker tried to reign in inflation too quickly, causing a recession.
  - neilwilson 6y ago
    If you believe modelling that actors can see the future perfectly is an advance - which is what Rational Expectations requires. It's a fudge to try and explain why monetary policy works instantly rather than in eighteen months to two years time. However the evidence of the failure to raise inflation to 2% demonstrates that it is wrong in practice. Unsurprisingly the real world can't see the future perfectly. Which is why you need advanced automatic stabiliser systems that actually work on the real world, not just the imagination.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

p10jkle 6y ago

Of course, you can test macroeconomics with a water tank too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC

lupire 6y ago
But hydrodynamics experiments actual give correct answers, because physics empirically matches physical theory, but economics doesn't.
- astrange 6y ago
  There's empirical economics now. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/sum... I mean, the macro men are still out there, their predictions are still always wrong, and they still refuse to admit it. But at least we're starting to not listen to them.
sceadu 6y ago
See also: https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Glooper https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Glooper
nroets 6y ago
That model predates important advances like Rational Expectations. Even in the 1980s the Fed under Paul Volcker tried to reign in inflation too quickly, causing a recession.
- neilwilson 6y ago
  If you believe modelling that actors can see the future perfectly is an advance - which is what Rational Expectations requires. It's a fudge to try and explain why monetary policy works instantly rather than in eighteen months to two years time. However the evidence of the failure to raise inflation to 2% demonstrates that it is wrong in practice. Unsurprisingly the real world can't see the future perfectly. Which is why you need advanced automatic stabiliser systems that actually work on the real world, not just the imagination.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]