4 ms·

Most informed economics are worse than a coinflip at predicting the future, so you might actually want to negate their opinions to get closer to the truth. Or a

by dannyw 5y ago

Most informed economics are worse than a coinflip at predicting the future, so you might actually want to negate their opinions to get closer to the truth. Or at the very least, disregard a speciality who consistently gets things wrong

uses 5y ago
This is borderline trolling because you're not really saying anything specific. Mainstream modern economics doesn't "consistently get things wrong", you just might not notice or care when it consistently gets things right. Because it's boring and well, predictable.
- NoOneNew 5y ago
  To back up the commenter's statement: most well informed economists kept pushing that China would sell US Treasury Bonds pennies on the dollar to "ruin" the US economy. Anyone with a half a brain and some real world business knowledge would realize: Do you really want to be the guy who mentions, let alone put into motion, that losing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of receipts to make a negotiation situation worse, is a good idea? At that, selling bonds at a discount helps open up for allied nations to suck up those bonds to make more future money themselves. Thus powering the US negotiation side even more. And did they play the bond game? Obviously not. They're not stupid. "I'm going to burn my money just to piss you guys off!" Seriously, many public figure economists are idiots. Not all. The good one's public discourse gets reserved to small press geopolitical publications. Even then, they always acknowledge how fickle an economy can be and how easy it is to be blindsided. So yea, high inflation in the next 5-10 years is a real possibility, especially as the stimulus bond payments start to mount.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > most well informed economists kept pushing that China would sell US Treasury Bonds pennies on the dollar Who's saying that?
    - NoOneNew 5y ago
      So you never actually read the articles, "China's economic/negotiation weapon against Trump". CNN, MSNBC and many other news agencies were pushing that narrative.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        This story has been going on for years, and it's always been a Nothing Burger: > Matthew Yglesias notes[1] an uptick in Very Serious People warning that China might lose confidence in America and start dumping our bonds. He focuses on China’s motives, which is useful. But the crucial point, which he touches on only briefly at the end, is that whatever China’s motives, the Chinese wouldn’t hurt us if they dumped our bonds — in fact, it would probably be good for America. * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/the-china-debt-syndrome/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/the-china-debt-... * https://archive.is/4Q95O https://archive.is/4Q95O
      - lottin 5y ago
        No, I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, because I'm European, but the OP was talking about "most well-informed economists", not media outlets, and I was curious who these economists are, being an economist myself.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
Most economic predictions are not logistic, so this statement is, strictly speaking, not meaningful.
mattferderer 5y ago
In this case you have: * The Fed who wants 2% inflation rate * 12 months of inflation that were very low, dipping to 0.1%. [1] * Re-opening of much of the economy * Massive consumer spending * Lots of issues with manufacturing & shipping over the past few months * Drought effecting crop prices [2] I don't think that counts as a coin flip. 1 - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl... 2 - https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions
- nostromo 5y ago
  Don't forget the counter argument: * The largest annual increase of the money supply in the history of the US, far larger than even WWII, with no end in sight.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Yeah but the money supply is an instrument of the Fed to control inflation. The fact that it has gone up indicates the Fed is attempting to increase the inflation rate, which makes sense because the rate is below the 2% target. So, I'm not sure what this argument is trying to tell us...
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    With a corresponding drop of velocity (V) off a cliff: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#Link_with_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#Link_with_inflati... Milton Friedman and Monetarists were wrong: velocity is not constant, and it does affect inflation. > Indeed, from 1982 to 1985, Friedman repeat- edly predicted a major revival of inflation that never occurred. In 1982 he predicted 8 percent inflation for 1983; the outcome was around 4 percent (FORT, 03/19/84). In July 1983, Friedman wrote, “We shall be fortunate indeed if we escape either a return to double-digit inflation or renewed recession in 1984” (NW, 07/25/83). In August 1983, he said, “U.S. inflation rates will rise appreciably in 1984, although it’s not yet determined where they’ll go from there” (TSN, 08/30/83). In April 1984, Friedman said, “I believe [the CPI] will be rising in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 percent in 1985.”33 Even in November 1985, Friedman said that “Inflation is not dead. It will emerge once again and will be higher next year than it is this year. We almost surely are currently at the bottom of this inflationary episode and are likely to be starting up again” (NYDN, 11/13/85). Defying these predictions, inflation was consistently below 5 percent in every month from 1983 to 1986; moreover, apart from a brief uptick in early 1984, inflation continued to decline after 1982, and was lower in 1986 than it was in 1985. * PDF: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/07/05/MayJun07Review.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie...

by dannyw 5y ago

uses 5y ago

This is borderline trolling because you're not really saying anything specific. Mainstream modern economics doesn't "consistently get things wrong", you just might not notice or care when it consistently gets things right. Because it's boring and well, predictable.

NoOneNew 5y ago
To back up the commenter's statement: most well informed economists kept pushing that China would sell US Treasury Bonds pennies on the dollar to "ruin" the US economy. Anyone with a half a brain and some real world business knowledge would realize: Do you really want to be the guy who mentions, let alone put into motion, that losing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of receipts to make a negotiation situation worse, is a good idea? At that, selling bonds at a discount helps open up for allied nations to suck up those bonds to make more future money themselves. Thus powering the US negotiation side even more. And did they play the bond game? Obviously not. They're not stupid. "I'm going to burn my money just to piss you guys off!" Seriously, many public figure economists are idiots. Not all. The good one's public discourse gets reserved to small press geopolitical publications. Even then, they always acknowledge how fickle an economy can be and how easy it is to be blindsided. So yea, high inflation in the next 5-10 years is a real possibility, especially as the stimulus bond payments start to mount.
- lottin 5y ago
  > most well informed economists kept pushing that China would sell US Treasury Bonds pennies on the dollar Who's saying that?
  - NoOneNew 5y ago
    So you never actually read the articles, "China's economic/negotiation weapon against Trump". CNN, MSNBC and many other news agencies were pushing that narrative.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      This story has been going on for years, and it's always been a Nothing Burger: > Matthew Yglesias notes[1] an uptick in Very Serious People warning that China might lose confidence in America and start dumping our bonds. He focuses on China’s motives, which is useful. But the crucial point, which he touches on only briefly at the end, is that whatever China’s motives, the Chinese wouldn’t hurt us if they dumped our bonds — in fact, it would probably be good for America. * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/the-china-debt-syndrome/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/the-china-debt-... * https://archive.is/4Q95O https://archive.is/4Q95O
    - lottin 5y ago
      No, I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, because I'm European, but the OP was talking about "most well-informed economists", not media outlets, and I was curious who these economists are, being an economist myself.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

Most economic predictions are not logistic, so this statement is, strictly speaking, not meaningful.

mattferderer 5y ago

In this case you have: * The Fed who wants 2% inflation rate * 12 months of inflation that were very low, dipping to 0.1%. [1] * Re-opening of much of the economy * Massive consumer spending * Lots of issues with manufacturing & shipping over the past few months * Drought effecting crop prices [2] I don't think that counts as a coin flip. 1 - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infl... 2 - https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions

nostromo 5y ago
Don't forget the counter argument: * The largest annual increase of the money supply in the history of the US, far larger than even WWII, with no end in sight.
- lottin 5y ago
  Yeah but the money supply is an instrument of the Fed to control inflation. The fact that it has gone up indicates the Fed is attempting to increase the inflation rate, which makes sense because the rate is below the 2% target. So, I'm not sure what this argument is trying to tell us...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  With a corresponding drop of velocity (V) off a cliff: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#Link_with_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#Link_with_inflati... Milton Friedman and Monetarists were wrong: velocity is not constant, and it does affect inflation. > Indeed, from 1982 to 1985, Friedman repeat- edly predicted a major revival of inflation that never occurred. In 1982 he predicted 8 percent inflation for 1983; the outcome was around 4 percent (FORT, 03/19/84). In July 1983, Friedman wrote, “We shall be fortunate indeed if we escape either a return to double-digit inflation or renewed recession in 1984” (NW, 07/25/83). In August 1983, he said, “U.S. inflation rates will rise appreciably in 1984, although it’s not yet determined where they’ll go from there” (TSN, 08/30/83). In April 1984, Friedman said, “I believe [the CPI] will be rising in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 percent in 1985.”33 Even in November 1985, Friedman said that “Inflation is not dead. It will emerge once again and will be higher next year than it is this year. We almost surely are currently at the bottom of this inflationary episode and are likely to be starting up again” (NYDN, 11/13/85). Defying these predictions, inflation was consistently below 5 percent in every month from 1983 to 1986; moreover, apart from a brief uptick in early 1984, inflation continued to decline after 1982, and was lower in 1986 than it was in 1985. * PDF: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/07/05/MayJun07Review.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie...