3 ms·

You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Economics has a long tradition of learning from Economic History and comparative observation. I can't resi

You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Economics has a long tradition of learning from Economic History and comparative observation. I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning): http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intelligent/homepage/2009/x2exp.pdf http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_intelligent/intellig... I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession. Well, here's an example: I worked for three years on a government-funded survey on "barter networks in Eastern Europe", where I did the number crunching on the data set... regression analysis, multivariate statistics etc. This resulted in one of the first extensive studies on contract theory in barter networks (http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-Barter/dp/0262133997 http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Trade-Transition-Resurgence-...). Basically in absence of cash to keep trade flowing you barter. Now if the U.S. financial system breaks down to the point where nobody can pay their suppliers and vendors etc. they'll have to pay each other with parts and other barter derivatives, passing around IOUs. Turns out, somebody looked at this and it works on a grand scale and even across borders. Anyway, there are lots of crazy ideas that you can try out and experiment with, looking at a rich data set of failed nations. I remember how expensive it was compiling all that data on barter networks (granted, we did the legwork; data was not from the IMF). Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation.

anamax 18y ago
> You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Not at all. I keep insisting that irrelevant data is a bad idea. I also ask what the IMF's actual record tells us about its relevance. I also point out that the US folk involved are largely IMF folk.... I note that you haven't taken me up on my offer of the phone numbers of the US. If you actually believe that "more data" is a good idea, you'd leap on that offer as helpful for each and every problem, but you haven't. Why don't you want my data? Does your refusal suggest that you actually believe that irrelevant data is harmful? Is it the source, that data from a mean person is harmful? What? > I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning): You might try actually reading it. Norvig is a stickler for good and relevant data. > I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession. And I never wrote otherwise. There's rich data everywhere. The problem is getting the right data and doing something useful with it. > Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation. Fair enough.
- christofd 18y ago
  Well, you ain't contributing anytime soon. Always replying in a sorta let-down, quick off-the-hook fashion. What's up with the telephone book nonsense and then insinuating that I haven't read Norvig's paper, which isn't that technical btw? This is just noise. The comparative study of failed nations does arouse my curiosity though and I think there are parallels to be found to the U.S. system. But again, this is still exploratory and requires some real work ahead. Peace.

anamax 18y ago

> You keep on insisting that "more data" is a bad idea. Not at all. I keep insisting that irrelevant data is a bad idea. I also ask what the IMF's actual record tells us about its relevance. I also point out that the US folk involved are largely IMF folk.... I note that you haven't taken me up on my offer of the phone numbers of the US. If you actually believe that "more data" is a good idea, you'd leap on that offer as helpful for each and every problem, but you haven't. Why don't you want my data? Does your refusal suggest that you actually believe that irrelevant data is harmful? Is it the source, that data from a mean person is harmful? What? > I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning): You might try actually reading it. Norvig is a stickler for good and relevant data. > I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession. And I never wrote otherwise. There's rich data everywhere. The problem is getting the right data and doing something useful with it. > Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation. Fair enough.

christofd 18y ago
Well, you ain't contributing anytime soon. Always replying in a sorta let-down, quick off-the-hook fashion. What's up with the telephone book nonsense and then insinuating that I haven't read Norvig's paper, which isn't that technical btw? This is just noise. The comparative study of failed nations does arouse my curiosity though and I think there are parallels to be found to the U.S. system. But again, this is still exploratory and requires some real work ahead. Peace.