3 ms·
This article is not great: the entirety is like 10 bullet points with very little analysis. There has to be a better source than link at the top (WaPo's analysi
by claudiulodro 5y ago
This article is not great: the entirety is like 10 bullet points with very little analysis. There has to be a better source than link at the top (WaPo's analysis seems pretty solid).
Looking at the graph though, I'm curious: why did forecasters expect a huge vertical jump in April instead of a continuation of the trend from the month before, especially with all the small businesses that went under last year.
- jeffbee 5y agoIt's because a lot of economists are as dumb as rocks. People like Larry Summers predicted a million new jobs because they are viewing the stimulus plan through the narrow and misleading lens of "output gap" and can't figure out other reasons people can't or don't work like limited mobility, housing crisis, and child care.
- N1H1L 5y agoMost economists have no skin in the game. It's laughable how cargo cult the field is.
- gruez 5y agoHow much "skin in the game" do people in the other social sciences have? eg. anthropology, political science, sociology, law. Furthermore, what if they do have skin in the game, won't the retort just change to "well they have a well vested interest to lie/mislead"?
- N1H1L 5y agoIf the outcome of the game is peanuts it doesn't matter. But if not, and if national policy is based on that - it's very problematic. And yes, the last time we made public policies based on imperfect anthropology (Nazi Germany, Apartheid SA or Rhodesia) it was a disaster.
- bhupy 5y agoThat's Axios's style. Their thesis is that most "analysis" is biased (and often wrong), and therefore they stick to just reporting the raw facts as concisely and easy to digest as possible. I, for one, love it but I understand why it may be off-putting to some.