Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#71

Post by Gibbon1 » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

atmosx wrote: post #63

arcturus17 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment manages to mix some elitist contempt of the arts with a whiff of conspiracy theory, while not saying anything of substance about Piketty’s work. Well done!

Arts? Economics is more of a religion than a science.

If you poke at economists you get the exact same arrogant rage that you get when you poke at fundamentalist religions.

Go ahead poke at Milton Friedman and watch them get really hot under the collar.

Compare with poking at Einstein (never accepted quantum mechanics) or Linus Pauling (alternative medicine nutter), Shockley (racist). Poke all you want the physics community doesn't care.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#72

Post by devoply » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #67

coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. You've managed to be personally insulting without adding anything of substance, to my comment, Piketty's work, or to the general question of why economists would shun it. I've particularly enjoyed the "elitist contempt of the arts" part (whatever that means, since "contempt of the arts" is usually base, not elitist, not to mention the fact that I don't mention "the arts" at all), and the thought-stopper accus…

I think you'd agree with me that the problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art. And this is utterly true of Economics more than anything. And actually while a lot of arts have been pulling themselves back from that rat hole economics just keeps digging deeper.

As Ha Joon Chang points out in his book Economics: The User's Guide, economics is about political arguments yet pretends as if it's a science. Hence most economists don't like the politics of Pinkety's economics. Which is what the op was alluding to though he did not mention explicitly... because they depend on money from people who don't like forwarding that political agenda. Secondly, it seems that the math that he used to make some of those arguments is not up to par so that makes it easy to dismiss his political arguments, and that's the issue when you go up against the status quo you better have inscrutable math because they are going to find any reason to dismiss you.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#73

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #3

Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…

Economics as used in policy seems to be mostly about using outrageously nonsensical arguments to justify tax cuts and increase corporate power by cutting regulations that enforce corporate responsibility.

The results are predictably grim for everyone who isn't a 0.1%er - sometimes fatally so.

There's a side-field of purely academic economics which includes heterodox ideas like MMT, but they - currently - have almost zero chance of having an influence on government policy.

I'm always bemused that psychics are regularly attacked by sceptics for being dangerous and fraudulent scammers who act in bad faith.

On the evidence, policy economists are vastly more dangerous.

A bad faith psychic might bankrupt a handful of people. Bad faith economists can bankrupt entire countries and/or force entire generations into debt - but sceptics seem to swallow what they have to sell with no rational oversight, and sometimes with support and approval.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#74

Post by cookingrobot » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #46

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "disproportionate price appreciation of housing and the land it sits on" seems to me to be primarily a factor only in some (maybe most) large cities; outside those cities, price appreciation, perhaps excessive price appreciation, has occurred, but it's nothing like that in those few cities. But those cities are where "the 1%" live or own property, so they're the beneficiaries of the price inflation, which is pr…

The hyper-inflation fix is the only "solution" I've heard in serious discussions on this mess. It's sort of insane, but when you dig into it, it maybe the least bad choice as far as bringing a healthy equilibrium back to the economy without economically devastating huge chunks of the population.

Inflation would also be a tidy way to pay for Universal Basic Income. Just print money and give it out.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#75

Post by luckydata » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #64

DFHippie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if it was authored by outstanding academics such as Reinhart or Rogoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > argue that scientists should be fired for publishing a paper that goes against your political values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It is not an argument from authority. It's a statement of fact that both authors have published a very long body of work including very high-value contributions to science, and they are not suddenly incompetent idiots just because they've published a paper that a random guy on the interned perceives as being politically inconvenient. And the OP quite literally argued the scientists who authored the paper should be fo…

They are not idiots, just highly motivated political operators using papers full of mistakes to make a point. That's the part that should have gotten them fired but since you agree with their goals then you don't take issue with that.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#76

Post by jcranmer » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #53

arcturus17 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment manages to mix some elitist contempt of the arts with a whiff of conspiracy theory, while not saying anything of substance about Piketty’s work. Well done!

Thanks. You've managed to be personally insulting without adding anything of substance, to my comment, Piketty's work, or to the general question of why economists would shun it. I've particularly enjoyed the "elitist contempt of the arts" part (whatever that means, since "contempt of the arts" is usually base, not elitist, not to mention the fact that I don't mention "the arts" at all), and the thought-stopper accus…

It is easy to point out the flaws in others. It is harder to recognize that we are hypocrites who have the very same flaws we accuse others as having. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we all stopped to first check to see if there beams in our eyes that would need casting before targeting the motes in others' eyes.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#77

Post by rb808 » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

I think one of the reasons lots of people liked Piketty is that he produced a huge book that most people didn't read but confirmed their bias, so he became some kind of hero.

Taleb did a pretty good job of taking apart Piketty's work. Its worth reading: https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#78

Post by yakubin » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #67

coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. You've managed to be personally insulting without adding anything of substance, to my comment, Piketty's work, or to the general question of why economists would shun it. I've particularly enjoyed the "elitist contempt of the arts" part (whatever that means, since "contempt of the arts" is usually base, not elitist, not to mention the fact that I don't mention "the arts" at all), and the thought-stopper accus…

I think you'd agree with me that the problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art. And this is utterly true of Economics more than anything. And actually while a lot of arts have been pulling themselves back from that rat hole economics just keeps digging deeper.

Just because something isn't science, doesn't mean that it is art. Social "sciences", psychology and the like are neither. It is true however that they get more and more ridiculous when they try to dress their ideologies in a scientifically-sounding language to get a piece of the cake which is credibility that the hard sciences cooked for themselves, at the same time having remarkably little to do with any science at all.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#79

Post by peteradio » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #76

coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. You've managed to be personally insulting without adding anything of substance, to my comment, Piketty's work, or to the general question of why economists would shun it. I've particularly enjoyed the "elitist contempt of the arts" part (whatever that means, since "contempt of the arts" is usually base, not elitist, not to mention the fact that I don't mention "the arts" at all), and the thought-stopper accus…

It is easy to point out the flaws in others. It is harder to recognize that we are hypocrites who have the very same flaws we accuse others as having. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we all stopped to first check to see if there beams in our eyes that would need casting before targeting the motes in others' eyes.

Or perhaps sometimes other people are actually wrong.

Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)

#80

Post by taffer » Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

yakubin wrote: post #78

Gibbon1 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd agree with me that the problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art. And this is utterly true of Economics more than anything. And actually while a lot of arts have been pulling themselves back from that rat hole economics just keeps digging deeper.

Just because something isn't science, doesn't mean that it is art. Social "sciences", psychology and the like are neither. It is true however that they get more and more ridiculous when they try to dress their ideologies in a scientifically-sounding language to get a piece of the cake which is credibility that the hard sciences cooked for themselves, at the same time having remarkably little to do with any science at…

Who are you to decide what is science and what isn't? What is your model of what a science is anyway? As long as you can't answer that, the only thing unscientific is your comment.