3 ms·

This sounds pretty dumb and naive as I'm typing it, but we live in a world of massive computational models and technological progress -- instead of relying on a

This sounds pretty dumb and naive as I'm typing it, but we live in a world of massive computational models and technological progress -- instead of relying on academic pundits, think tanks and goofballs on social platforms floating economic ideas and theories on how to pay for things, why hasn't anybody modeled thousands of possible scenarios to figure out the top 10 over-optimized plans showing how to tax fairly + effectively, how to spend / divert / incentivize business effectively, and present many options on "where the money is going to come from" for many beneficial things for the greater good? "A rising tide lifts all boats", and that sort of thing. Is it due to lack of data? Politics? Greed? Pressures from business / "the rich" / orthodox academia to maintain the status quo? All of the above? I just get the feeling that the world isn't necessarily a zero-sum game anymore, but nobody whose sum is currently far greater than zero wants to admit it.

segfaltnh 3y ago
I would imagine all such models would rely on thousands or more factors which, when tweaked based on individual bias, show widely variable outcomes.
semiquaver 3y ago
This question reminds me of the computer scene from “Willy Wonka”. https://youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ2j9yK_NY https://youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ2j9yK_NY I’m imagining the computer guru presenting his plan to Congress: “my 100% infallible computer model says here’s what the tax law should be. Please overhaul society now and make sure you don’t let any of your prior opinions cloud your judgement now that the computer has told you what’s best.” Computational models are models: they work best with systems we already basically understand the rules to or can at least approximate. Like weather or physics. Economics is a social science. Economies are incredibly dynamic systems because they’re made of people. Every change to the system causes the participants to change their behavior. People are significantly more complicated than Game Of Life gliders. A model that can correctly simulate the economy requires strong AGI or magic, neither of which have been invented yet.

segfaltnh 3y ago

I would imagine all such models would rely on thousands or more factors which, when tweaked based on individual bias, show widely variable outcomes.

semiquaver 3y ago

This question reminds me of the computer scene from “Willy Wonka”. https://youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ2j9yK_NY https://youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ2j9yK_NY I’m imagining the computer guru presenting his plan to Congress: “my 100% infallible computer model says here’s what the tax law should be. Please overhaul society now and make sure you don’t let any of your prior opinions cloud your judgement now that the computer has told you what’s best.” Computational models are models: they work best with systems we already basically understand the rules to or can at least approximate. Like weather or physics. Economics is a social science. Economies are incredibly dynamic systems because they’re made of people. Every change to the system causes the participants to change their behavior. People are significantly more complicated than Game Of Life gliders. A model that can correctly simulate the economy requires strong AGI or magic, neither of which have been invented yet.