When Jimmy Carter was elected... worst

[Traitorfish]

Which one is Cutlass?

 

[onejayhawk]

Valid point.

I think Cutlass' father is behind the camera.

 

[Tahuti]

Which one is Cutlass?

The very point is that some people actually believe that he would be somewhere in the picture...

 

[onejayhawk]

The very point is that some people actually believe that he would be somewhere in the picture...

or want to be.

J

 

[Hygro]

OJH, I've noticed you almost never answer direct questions.

 

[Masada]

The party line that economists can control the economy. It seems to be endemic with economics majors that don't start as math geeks.

That's like the opposite of what I've experienced. Math geeks are the worst for thinking like that. They're used to dealing with hard numbers and well-grounded models where the relationships between variables are understood. Economics has none of that but does a good job of pretending otherwise. That's why economic predictions tend to suck so badly. Whereas some like Hydro who comes from a Political Economy sort of background tends to see things in different terms. I'll try and sum up my view of his view: but basically, Hydro seems to care rather more about the context and history surrounding something and uses that to ground his views of what a model might produce. If the models outputs don't make sense, in his view, that's more likely to be the product of the model rather than a change in how the world works. Maths geeks tend to take the opposite view: if the output doesn't accord with the world, the model must be right and the world wrong. I don't know whose view is better: but Hydro is more likely than not to be right in my view because counter-intuitive model-based learnings about the real world are rare in contemporary economics.

The concept that governments control the economy is a religious dogma.

They do. And it's easy to see and understand why. Governments account for about half (often-times more) of economic activity in industrialized countries. That's an order of magnitude higher than most other sectors of the economy and orders of magnitude higher than the output from the largest firms. It follows quite intuitively then that governments exert control over the economy. Whether or not governments are proficient at exerting that control or even understand how they control the economy is another issue entirely. But I think it uncontroversial to suggest that governments can and do control the economy. Pretty much everyone across the economic spectrum would accept that. Political liberals like Cutlass, and MMT people like Hydro accept it much as Very Serious People on the right do. Now I grant that the right might hate the idea. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Pegasus_77]

he was a champion of peace. Should have been a UN secretary

 

[onejayhawk]

OJH, I've noticed you almost never answer direct questions.

I rarely get one. Most questions are oblique.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

he was a champion of peace. Should have been a UN secretary

Cutlass?

J

 

[onejayhawk]

That's like the opposite of what I've experienced. Math geeks are the worst for thinking like that. They're used to dealing with hard numbers and well-grounded models where the relationships between variables are understood. Economics has none of that but does a good job of pretending otherwise. That's why economic predictions tend to suck so badly. Whereas some like Hydro who comes from a Political Economy sort of background tends to see things in different terms. I'll try and sum up my view of his view: but basically, Hydro seems to care rather more about the context and history surrounding something and uses that to ground his views of what a model might produce. If the models outputs don't make sense, in his view, that's more likely to be the product of the model rather than a change in how the world works. Maths geeks tend to take the opposite view: if the output doesn't accord with the world, the model must be right and the world wrong. I don't know whose view is better: but Hydro is more likely than not to be right in my view because counter-intuitive model-based learnings about the real world are rare in contemporary economics.


They do. And it's easy to see and understand why. Governments account for about half (often-times more) of economic activity in industrialized countries. That's an order of magnitude higher than most other sectors of the economy and orders of magnitude higher than the output from the largest firms. It follows quite intuitively then that governments exert control over the economy. Whether or not governments are proficient at exerting that control or even understand how they control the economy is another issue entirely. But I think it uncontroversial to suggest that governments can and do control the economy. Pretty much everyone across the economic spectrum would accept that. Political liberals like Cutlass, and MMT people like Hydro accept it much as Very Serious People on the right do. Now I grant that the right might hate the idea. But that's neither here nor there.

That was more or less my point about math geeks. Their faith is in the model. I don't know how many times I've heard them say that the result does not fit the model.

Governments, and economists, look at their influence in the local and assume it it is general. It's like putting dikes, dams, levees and drainage canals on the Mississippi and thinking the flood plain is safe.

J

 

[Hygro]

I rarely get one. Most questions are oblique.

J

I've asked you a half dozen in the past couple weeks that you've left hanging

 

[Core Imposter]

Is it possible for the Fed to normalize interest rates in the near term without causing a recession?

Should I say normalize or just use the word raise?

Should I use the "near term" or just specify a time period?

What would a normalized rate be in nominal terms?

Why do we ever need to raise rates? Why can't rates remain near the zero bound forever?

Why can't we simply enact a negative income tax sufficient to provide a universal minimum wage at above the poverty level?

 

[onejayhawk]

I've asked you a half dozen in the past couple weeks that you've left hanging

I never claimed perfection, though I recall giving several direct answers.

J

 

[Masada]

That was more or less my point about math geeks. Their faith is in the model. I don't know how many times I've heard them say that the result does not fit the model.

You seem to have done a complete 180 degree turn here.

Governments, and economists, look at their influence in the local and assume it it is general. It's like putting dikes, dams, levees and drainage canals on the Mississippi and thinking the flood plain is safe.

In concrete terms: what does this actually mean? Because it isn't clear.

 

[onejayhawk]

You seem to have done a complete 180 degree turn here.

In concrete terms: what does this actually mean? Because it isn't clear.

Math geeks believe in The Model, in the sense of Plato's forms. Non geeks believe that they can conform reality to their chosen model. In concrete terms, oversimplification is inevitable. It is impossible to account for all significant factors.

Economics has predictive and explanatory value. As a planning tool, it is invaluable, but limited.

J

 

[dutchfire]

Governments, and economists, look at their influence in the local and assume it it is general.

It's like people looking at their family or their business and thinking the United States should be run in the same way.