3 ms·

Modern calipers revolutionizing the field of phrenology.

by Mizza 5y ago

carapace 5y ago
LOL! It's hilarious that economists are talking about "empirical" economics. What were they doing before this? "Unempirical" economics? Seriously though, economics seems (has seemed) little better than numerology to me, so I'm glad to see the field start to graduate from the alchemical to the chemical stage of knowledge. Good for them.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I like to condemn economics as only being able to predict value based on a very limited set of things that can be measured/tested. The strange thing is, even with "measurements" like CO2/global warming so clearly pointing to armageddon in a few generations, the field of economics is STILL unable to quantify such impacts on models, or produce effective economic pricing measures. Of course, because in addition to being only a crude "science" that basically reduces to bad accounting practice on a massive scale, economics is also dressed up as a "crystal ball science" that the oligarchical powers can trot out to justify their positions and current structure of monetary distribution as a priori destiny. So it is ALSO politically corrupt, not just computationally bankrupt. The reality is of course that there is plenty of money to deal with most of our massive structural problems. But who owns that money? The rich who will rather see the world destroyed than give it up.
  - carapace 5y ago
    Yeah, you're preaching to the choir. The paltry predictive power of economics as "science" combined with the role economists play as modern-day court astrologers has always made it seem absurd to me. > The reality is of course that there is plenty of money to deal with most of our massive structural problems. I'm a fan of Bucky Fuller, he calculated that we could do it with only about $25B in 1970's dollars. The catch is we would have to deploy our resources and technology efficiently (rather than maximizing profit.) > But who owns that money? The rich who will rather see the world destroyed than give it up. It seems that way. In any event, the solution will be social and even spiritual (rather than technological.)
- tomcat27 5y ago
  > What were they doing before this? "Unempirical" economics? Building tractable mathematical models. Explain phenomenons. Empirical results are used to validate these days. A classic model is supply & demand curves -- as price increases supply increases, demand falls, with certain exceptions. Empiricists have spent significant effort doing RCTs to demonstrate the model works and there are exceptions. The model stands tall even today.
SantalBlush 5y ago
Do you save or spend money? Then you have beliefs about the economy. If those beliefs are less precisely defined than an economic model, that makes them inferior, not superior, because they are less subject to falsification. In other words, you would be the phrenologist here.

Modern calipers revolutionizing the field of phrenology.

by Mizza 5y ago

Modern calipers revolutionizing the field of phrenology.

LOL! It's hilarious that economists are talking about "empirical" economics. What were they doing before this? "Unempirical" economics? Seriously though, economics seems (has seemed) little better than numerology to me, so I'm glad to see the field start to graduate from the alchemical to the chemical stage of knowledge. Good for them.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I like to condemn economics as only being able to predict value based on a very limited set of things that can be measured/tested. The strange thing is, even with "measurements" like CO2/global warming so clearly pointing to armageddon in a few generations, the field of economics is STILL unable to quantify such impacts on models, or produce effective economic pricing measures. Of course, because in addition to being only a crude "science" that basically reduces to bad accounting practice on a massive scale, economics is also dressed up as a "crystal ball science" that the oligarchical powers can trot out to justify their positions and current structure of monetary distribution as a priori destiny. So it is ALSO politically corrupt, not just computationally bankrupt. The reality is of course that there is plenty of money to deal with most of our massive structural problems. But who owns that money? The rich who will rather see the world destroyed than give it up.
- carapace 5y ago
  Yeah, you're preaching to the choir. The paltry predictive power of economics as "science" combined with the role economists play as modern-day court astrologers has always made it seem absurd to me. > The reality is of course that there is plenty of money to deal with most of our massive structural problems. I'm a fan of Bucky Fuller, he calculated that we could do it with only about $25B in 1970's dollars. The catch is we would have to deploy our resources and technology efficiently (rather than maximizing profit.) > But who owns that money? The rich who will rather see the world destroyed than give it up. It seems that way. In any event, the solution will be social and even spiritual (rather than technological.)
tomcat27 5y ago
> What were they doing before this? "Unempirical" economics? Building tractable mathematical models. Explain phenomenons. Empirical results are used to validate these days. A classic model is supply & demand curves -- as price increases supply increases, demand falls, with certain exceptions. Empiricists have spent significant effort doing RCTs to demonstrate the model works and there are exceptions. The model stands tall even today.

SantalBlush 5y ago

Do you save or spend money? Then you have beliefs about the economy. If those beliefs are less precisely defined than an economic model, that makes them inferior, not superior, because they are less subject to falsification. In other words, you would be the phrenologist here.