6 ms·

>Our public policy would probably better served if most of the profession was put on a cruise ship and launched out to sea. Just saying. Economic policy will b

>Our public policy would probably better served if most of the profession was put on a cruise ship and launched out to sea. Just saying. Economic policy will be made, whether we like it or not. This policy must be based on some type of model, whether that model is simple or complex. So here's the question: do you have a falsifiable, demonstrably better model than one of those used in mainstream economics? If so, you can simply show it to us. If not, then we're sticking with one of the models used in mainstream econ. This goes for every single complaint about economics being "corrupt". Show us your better model. If you can't, well then, it doesn't matter.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
"The need for a status quo is so powerful that we must preserve the status quo at all costs" is there more to it than that because I really can't find anything else here. The current approach is abhorrent because of its effects on human lives today and needs to be ended for that reason. No one here is the author of the future and it's not their responsibility to present a vision of it that you will accept before you acknowledge horrors that exist now.
- CPLX 5y ago
  What this guy said.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  If the current approach is ended, it will be replaced with something, even if that is a laissez-faire "we don't know, so just let it sort itself out" approach. Will that something result in fewer horrors than those that exist now? The onus is definitely on the persons wanting change to make an actual case for that change. So yes, it is their responsibility to present a vision of their alternative future that I will accept.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    > The onus is definitely on the persons wanting change to make an actual case for that change No it's not. The onus is on the people who created policies that lead to massive inequality and human misery to explain why we shouldn't string them up as an example to others.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Yes, it is. Based on what you've written so far, I don't believe you actually have a concrete solution that will eliminate massive inequality and human misery. Complaining about the status quo is extremely easy, and everyone does it. That doesn't mean they have a clue how to fix it. If you think you have a solution, prove it. Otherwise, I'll keep supporting the devil I know.
      - CPLX 5y ago
        > I don't believe you actually have a concrete solution that will eliminate massive inequality and human misery. Sure don't. But I don't expect my ideas will exacerbate it.
        tomrod 5y ago
        So, to summarize: you have no ideas for improvement, and just want to watch the world burn. Not put out the fire, not rebuild, just rage. Per your comments, Neoliberal policy has ruined the world and you hate all things Neoliberal, but don't express (or possibly have) familiarity with the alternatives you rail against. Sounds good. Totally normal to be angry in today's environment. We disagree fundamentally. Not a lot more to be said.
        diordiderot 5y ago
        1.Tax the delta of r & g
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
Adrox 5y ago
N. N. Taleb answers that in the black swan. Better NO MODEL, than the wrong model. We do that with a lot of nature disasters, earthquakes, volcanos, we simply don't know when they gonna happen, and build according (no buildings near volcanos, better and better buildings earthquake resistant, instead of trying to predict when and where they happen and evacuate people, that we can't). I would be more happy if a economist said right now: "I don't know what's gonna happen, I have no idea what to do". Than: "We should not raise minimum salary, etc, etc.." And it turns out to be wrong.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  That's a fallacy. There is no agnosticism when it comes to earthquakes, weather, economics, or physics. Every single person on this earth makes day-to-day decisions based on their mental models of how these things work. You just described a model when you wrote "...no buildings near volcanos." Make no mistake, that is absolutely a model of where volcanic eruptions occur, it's just a very simple one. Now here's the question: what do you mean by "near"? Is it within 20 miles? 100 miles? As you try to answer that question, you are refining your model. Just saying, "Well, you know, it's just near" is a cop-out. It's not very useful. Do you perform work in exchange for money? Then you believe your currency will hold a reasonable amount of its value until you get paid, and you might believe that based on things like the currency's historical performance, etc. That is part of your economic model, and every single person who participates in the economy has a model like that. The difference in the academic discipline is that one should be precise in one's descriptions (which is what the math is for) so if they're wrong, they have no wiggle room to make ad hoc adjustments and pretend their model was actually right. So if anyone wants to criticize mainstream economic models, the real criticism should be that they aren't precise enough.
  - Adrox 5y ago
    What is the fallacy? Yes, I have/use economic models in my life. The difference is I don't use them to justify changing the life of millions of people, not even my own family. I advice them, and tell them what is in my opinion in what best to do. But I always start with "I am not a financial advisor". Talking about economy now one can be 100% sure about anything. Now change the camera to the hundreds of "economists" making predictions without any track record, without any disclamer and with 100% certains. Not just "TV"/news economists, I live in Europe, which has 27 Financial Ministers, when there is a crisis all off them always come out announcing "measures" as they know how we get out of the crisis, that none of them imagined it could happen, but knows for sure how to get out of it... I actually don't have anything against Krugman (that actually won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff... He never aknowledge his error, didn't even reflected why he failed this, and how to avoid it in the future, and no one asks him about it... And he is one of the "best" ones. The news is full of this kind of "predictions" and "economic models", that are mostly wrong all the time, and then we come back and ask the same guys how to fix things now? What credibility to they have? As much as me?
CPLX 5y ago
> So here's the question: do you have a falsifiable, demonstrably better model than one of those used in mainstream economics? If so, you can simply show it to us. Yes. My model is: Care about full employment more. Free trade can have benefits but without a plan it causes permanent generational harm. Purposefully exporting your industrial base to another country will risk societal collapse. Supply chains are fragile. And so on. This may seem facile but it would be loads better than the current mainstream economics models. Have you actually seen any of the current models? Do you think that working up some sort of IS/LM analysis is going to lead to better outcomes? Do you think that more partial differential equations are helping somehow? The entire fucking premise of the thing is fucked. I wrote my economics thesis on it. I don't feel like writing a long essay here but I'll tell a small story that maybe will illustrate the concept: Ask yourself how you'd apply the concept of rational expectations or the efficient market hypothesis to the simple game of chess. Would it be a useful analysis to put two players on opposite sides of the table and say "each agent will maximize their utility and engage in actions that are understandable as rational". I mean you could say that but what the fuck would you even mean? What is the rational next step for a participant in a game of chess? It's taken us generations of computing power to even sort of get a handle on this, and we're talking about a completely bounded game with 64 squares and 16 players on each side. Yet despite the fundamental simplicity of the system we still have a possibility space that resists analysis and is certainly not one where a normal person could optimize their strategy in any meaningful way. But then we shift to an unbounded competitive game with billions of participants and think there's such a thing as a rational utility optimizing strategy that agents can discern and follow? GTFO. It's a nonsensical argument. The fact is that economic systems are complex adaptive systems that display properties of chaotic behavior, non-linear responses to inputs, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and lock-in effects. Someone might come along and point out that actually modern economics models do take that stuff into account and there's all sorts of people working in that context, that we've handed out Nobel prizes for research on asymmetric information decision making and all that. Cool. And yeah the people who get the premise I'm getting at, which is that neoclassical models are fucking useless at any kind of policy level, will probably be the ones that salvage economics, if in fact it's a thing that can be salvaged. But in the meantime, I disagree with your premise. Sometimes it's better to know you don't know anything than to use your beautiful and wrong model to override people that would otherwise be making common sense decisions, like maybe we shouldn't implement austerity measures because people will die if we do.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

"The need for a status quo is so powerful that we must preserve the status quo at all costs" is there more to it than that because I really can't find anything else here. The current approach is abhorrent because of its effects on human lives today and needs to be ended for that reason. No one here is the author of the future and it's not their responsibility to present a vision of it that you will accept before you acknowledge horrors that exist now.

CPLX 5y ago
What this guy said.
SantalBlush 5y ago
If the current approach is ended, it will be replaced with something, even if that is a laissez-faire "we don't know, so just let it sort itself out" approach. Will that something result in fewer horrors than those that exist now? The onus is definitely on the persons wanting change to make an actual case for that change. So yes, it is their responsibility to present a vision of their alternative future that I will accept.
- CPLX 5y ago
  > The onus is definitely on the persons wanting change to make an actual case for that change No it's not. The onus is on the people who created policies that lead to massive inequality and human misery to explain why we shouldn't string them up as an example to others.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Yes, it is. Based on what you've written so far, I don't believe you actually have a concrete solution that will eliminate massive inequality and human misery. Complaining about the status quo is extremely easy, and everyone does it. That doesn't mean they have a clue how to fix it. If you think you have a solution, prove it. Otherwise, I'll keep supporting the devil I know.
    - CPLX 5y ago
      > I don't believe you actually have a concrete solution that will eliminate massive inequality and human misery. Sure don't. But I don't expect my ideas will exacerbate it.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        So, to summarize: you have no ideas for improvement, and just want to watch the world burn. Not put out the fire, not rebuild, just rage. Per your comments, Neoliberal policy has ruined the world and you hate all things Neoliberal, but don't express (or possibly have) familiarity with the alternatives you rail against. Sounds good. Totally normal to be angry in today's environment. We disagree fundamentally. Not a lot more to be said.
        diordiderot 5y ago
        1.Tax the delta of r & g
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Adrox 5y ago

N. N. Taleb answers that in the black swan. Better NO MODEL, than the wrong model. We do that with a lot of nature disasters, earthquakes, volcanos, we simply don't know when they gonna happen, and build according (no buildings near volcanos, better and better buildings earthquake resistant, instead of trying to predict when and where they happen and evacuate people, that we can't). I would be more happy if a economist said right now: "I don't know what's gonna happen, I have no idea what to do". Than: "We should not raise minimum salary, etc, etc.." And it turns out to be wrong.

SantalBlush 5y ago
That's a fallacy. There is no agnosticism when it comes to earthquakes, weather, economics, or physics. Every single person on this earth makes day-to-day decisions based on their mental models of how these things work. You just described a model when you wrote "...no buildings near volcanos." Make no mistake, that is absolutely a model of where volcanic eruptions occur, it's just a very simple one. Now here's the question: what do you mean by "near"? Is it within 20 miles? 100 miles? As you try to answer that question, you are refining your model. Just saying, "Well, you know, it's just near" is a cop-out. It's not very useful. Do you perform work in exchange for money? Then you believe your currency will hold a reasonable amount of its value until you get paid, and you might believe that based on things like the currency's historical performance, etc. That is part of your economic model, and every single person who participates in the economy has a model like that. The difference in the academic discipline is that one should be precise in one's descriptions (which is what the math is for) so if they're wrong, they have no wiggle room to make ad hoc adjustments and pretend their model was actually right. So if anyone wants to criticize mainstream economic models, the real criticism should be that they aren't precise enough.
- Adrox 5y ago
  What is the fallacy? Yes, I have/use economic models in my life. The difference is I don't use them to justify changing the life of millions of people, not even my own family. I advice them, and tell them what is in my opinion in what best to do. But I always start with "I am not a financial advisor". Talking about economy now one can be 100% sure about anything. Now change the camera to the hundreds of "economists" making predictions without any track record, without any disclamer and with 100% certains. Not just "TV"/news economists, I live in Europe, which has 27 Financial Ministers, when there is a crisis all off them always come out announcing "measures" as they know how we get out of the crisis, that none of them imagined it could happen, but knows for sure how to get out of it... I actually don't have anything against Krugman (that actually won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff... He never aknowledge his error, didn't even reflected why he failed this, and how to avoid it in the future, and no one asks him about it... And he is one of the "best" ones. The news is full of this kind of "predictions" and "economic models", that are mostly wrong all the time, and then we come back and ask the same guys how to fix things now? What credibility to they have? As much as me?

CPLX 5y ago

> So here's the question: do you have a falsifiable, demonstrably better model than one of those used in mainstream economics? If so, you can simply show it to us. Yes. My model is: Care about full employment more. Free trade can have benefits but without a plan it causes permanent generational harm. Purposefully exporting your industrial base to another country will risk societal collapse. Supply chains are fragile. And so on. This may seem facile but it would be loads better than the current mainstream economics models. Have you actually seen any of the current models? Do you think that working up some sort of IS/LM analysis is going to lead to better outcomes? Do you think that more partial differential equations are helping somehow? The entire fucking premise of the thing is fucked. I wrote my economics thesis on it. I don't feel like writing a long essay here but I'll tell a small story that maybe will illustrate the concept: Ask yourself how you'd apply the concept of rational expectations or the efficient market hypothesis to the simple game of chess. Would it be a useful analysis to put two players on opposite sides of the table and say "each agent will maximize their utility and engage in actions that are understandable as rational". I mean you could say that but what the fuck would you even mean? What is the rational next step for a participant in a game of chess? It's taken us generations of computing power to even sort of get a handle on this, and we're talking about a completely bounded game with 64 squares and 16 players on each side. Yet despite the fundamental simplicity of the system we still have a possibility space that resists analysis and is certainly not one where a normal person could optimize their strategy in any meaningful way. But then we shift to an unbounded competitive game with billions of participants and think there's such a thing as a rational utility optimizing strategy that agents can discern and follow? GTFO. It's a nonsensical argument. The fact is that economic systems are complex adaptive systems that display properties of chaotic behavior, non-linear responses to inputs, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and lock-in effects. Someone might come along and point out that actually modern economics models do take that stuff into account and there's all sorts of people working in that context, that we've handed out Nobel prizes for research on asymmetric information decision making and all that. Cool. And yeah the people who get the premise I'm getting at, which is that neoclassical models are fucking useless at any kind of policy level, will probably be the ones that salvage economics, if in fact it's a thing that can be salvaged. But in the meantime, I disagree with your premise. Sometimes it's better to know you don't know anything than to use your beautiful and wrong model to override people that would otherwise be making common sense decisions, like maybe we shouldn't implement austerity measures because people will die if we do.