6 ms·

Which is more likely to be true: 1. The experts act as if they skipped the first month of high school science class. 2. You don’t understand the topic well

by syki 5y ago

Which is more likely to be true: 1. The experts act as if they skipped the first month of high school science class. 2. You don’t understand the topic well enough.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
The experts know that the average person mentally skipped STEM classes in high school, and that they can therefore follow politically viable discussions on ‘inflation’ which is an entirely political # because it is preference based (politics is preference). E.g. we should have seen headlines saying inflation has been increasing dramatically over the last few years as housing prices have shot up, but conveniently for politicians, housing prices were not included in the ‘basket’
- syki 5y ago
  The methodology used by BLS is publicized and you can know what is and is not included in the calculation. There is no conspiracy to hide this information. If housing costs are what you want to know about then don’t use BLS’ calculation. There are agencies that track rent and housing prices.
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  The cost of real property aren’t included because that is considered a capital investment in the USA BLS numbers. A house is not an item that is consumed, since you can generally sell it for more when you’re done. It would be like including the cost of stocks and bonds in inflation. The cost of housing, not houses, is the biggest single component of the CPI. That means that the cost of rent, or rent equivalent, is very much factored in. We very much do have headlines about the crazy costs of houses. But housing costs, that is the price to consume one month of housing service (aka rent) are a different thing.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Housing, healthcare, school are still things that most people are involved with, and they have experienced massive inflation.
    - dghlsakjg 5y ago
      Which is why they are included in the CPI. That’s exactly what I was saying
tharne 5y ago
In most cases I would agree with you regarding experts, but we're talking about economists here, not real experts. Let's take just one example, Nobel Prize winning Economist and New York Times contributor, Paul Krugman. The 1998, this gentlemen made the following bold declaration: "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s." This is the same individual who mocked anyone who questioned the dogma of unlimited globalization and free trade in the 80's and 90's, only to admit later that he and others were very wrong about the damage it would do to the American middle class. And then there's the fact that Krugman and the vast majority of economists completely failed to see the 2008 crisis building. And mind you, Krugman isn't just any economist, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist who writes for "the newspaper of record". So yes, when the "experts" of economics get things so miserably wrong, I'll stick with my original claim that they skipped the first month of high school science class. Economists are modern-day tarot card readers.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Krugman has become a political pundit. You are quoting his punditry work. Economists have never claimed globalization is a net negative, because it's not. I agree they did not a do a good enough job of ensuring the government would help those harmed by globalization, but that is because they largely believe it's not their place to recommend policy actions, not because it surprised them.
newaccount2021 5y ago
[dead]

by syki 5y ago

Which is more likely to be true: 1. The experts act as if they skipped the first month of high school science class. 2. You don’t understand the topic well enough.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

The experts know that the average person mentally skipped STEM classes in high school, and that they can therefore follow politically viable discussions on ‘inflation’ which is an entirely political # because it is preference based (politics is preference). E.g. we should have seen headlines saying inflation has been increasing dramatically over the last few years as housing prices have shot up, but conveniently for politicians, housing prices were not included in the ‘basket’

syki 5y ago
The methodology used by BLS is publicized and you can know what is and is not included in the calculation. There is no conspiracy to hide this information. If housing costs are what you want to know about then don’t use BLS’ calculation. There are agencies that track rent and housing prices.
dghlsakjg 5y ago
The cost of real property aren’t included because that is considered a capital investment in the USA BLS numbers. A house is not an item that is consumed, since you can generally sell it for more when you’re done. It would be like including the cost of stocks and bonds in inflation. The cost of housing, not houses, is the biggest single component of the CPI. That means that the cost of rent, or rent equivalent, is very much factored in. We very much do have headlines about the crazy costs of houses. But housing costs, that is the price to consume one month of housing service (aka rent) are a different thing.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Housing, healthcare, school are still things that most people are involved with, and they have experienced massive inflation.
  - dghlsakjg 5y ago
    Which is why they are included in the CPI. That’s exactly what I was saying

tharne 5y ago

In most cases I would agree with you regarding experts, but we're talking about economists here, not real experts. Let's take just one example, Nobel Prize winning Economist and New York Times contributor, Paul Krugman. The 1998, this gentlemen made the following bold declaration: "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s." This is the same individual who mocked anyone who questioned the dogma of unlimited globalization and free trade in the 80's and 90's, only to admit later that he and others were very wrong about the damage it would do to the American middle class. And then there's the fact that Krugman and the vast majority of economists completely failed to see the 2008 crisis building. And mind you, Krugman isn't just any economist, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist who writes for "the newspaper of record". So yes, when the "experts" of economics get things so miserably wrong, I'll stick with my original claim that they skipped the first month of high school science class. Economists are modern-day tarot card readers.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Krugman has become a political pundit. You are quoting his punditry work. Economists have never claimed globalization is a net negative, because it's not. I agree they did not a do a good enough job of ensuring the government would help those harmed by globalization, but that is because they largely believe it's not their place to recommend policy actions, not because it surprised them.

newaccount2021 5y ago

[dead]