4 ms·

> FTFA: "The project consisted of four modules: an economic simulator [...]" We have sophisticated physics simulators nowadays but no economic simulator to be

> FTFA: "The project consisted of four modules: an economic simulator [...]" We have sophisticated physics simulators nowadays but no economic simulator to be found. It's almost as if all those economic formulae are a giant pretense and can't really provide a concrete explanation of how things work as required by algorithms (and people, but you can always fool people - you just can't fool computers).

agumonkey 12y ago
Economic simulation is probably just below weather prediction... not really possible.
- innguest 12y ago
  That's what I am arguing. :) But your comparison is unfair. It's not about weather prediction, I have no comments about that. But can't we simulate it? Yes we can, I play GTA, sometimes it's raining and my car skids more. That's weather simulation. Where's the economic simulation where I make interest rates negative and ...(fill in the blanks - who knows?)... that's why a simulator would really come in handy. The difference between physics and economics is physics can use its formulae to simulate what it claims to explain, while economics can't. That makes me think those two sets of formulae are not of the same breed.
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    GTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Maybe economics have no 'one true' model from which equations can be derived, but even if there were such equations, the complexity wouldn't be manageable unless you reduce the precision to the point it's unreliable for real world usage.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > GTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Far? Cars skid in the water. They have different weights. The engine being on the front or on the back makes a difference in how the car drives. They have different acceleration speeds, different traction, and so on. It's pretty good, so I wouldn't call it "crippled". However, economics can't even make a simulator as good as GTA is for physics. That is pathetic and a testament to its quackery.
jloughry 12y ago
There was an attempt made to build an economic simulator (really a special purpose analogue computer using water as the working medium) in the 1940s in New Zealand [1]. Terry Pratchett played with the concept in one of his books [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer [2] Making Money (2007)
eru 12y ago
All the hedge funds and banks are trying to run economics simulators. We are just much more aware of the limitations, and deal in probability distributions rather than concrete forecasts.

agumonkey 12y ago

Economic simulation is probably just below weather prediction... not really possible.

innguest 12y ago
That's what I am arguing. :) But your comparison is unfair. It's not about weather prediction, I have no comments about that. But can't we simulate it? Yes we can, I play GTA, sometimes it's raining and my car skids more. That's weather simulation. Where's the economic simulation where I make interest rates negative and ...(fill in the blanks - who knows?)... that's why a simulator would really come in handy. The difference between physics and economics is physics can use its formulae to simulate what it claims to explain, while economics can't. That makes me think those two sets of formulae are not of the same breed.
- agumonkey 12y ago
  GTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Maybe economics have no 'one true' model from which equations can be derived, but even if there were such equations, the complexity wouldn't be manageable unless you reduce the precision to the point it's unreliable for real world usage.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > GTA is a real time crippled approximation of physics, far from a simulation. Far? Cars skid in the water. They have different weights. The engine being on the front or on the back makes a difference in how the car drives. They have different acceleration speeds, different traction, and so on. It's pretty good, so I wouldn't call it "crippled". However, economics can't even make a simulator as good as GTA is for physics. That is pathetic and a testament to its quackery.

jloughry 12y ago

There was an attempt made to build an economic simulator (really a special purpose analogue computer using water as the working medium) in the 1940s in New Zealand [1]. Terry Pratchett played with the concept in one of his books [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer [2] Making Money (2007)

eru 12y ago

All the hedge funds and banks are trying to run economics simulators. We are just much more aware of the limitations, and deal in probability distributions rather than concrete forecasts.