11–13 of 13 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only tangentially related to economics. There are no economic reasons why I prefer TBS to FPS games.
That is what economics is about in no small part: preferences, their pricing and expression. The pure movement of money isn't particularly interesting.
Preferences and pricing is marketing, not purely economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what economics is about in no small part: preferences, their pricing and expression. The pure movement of money isn't particularly interesting.
The pure movement of money is interesting as long as we have economic crashes happening from time to time that we don't predict. Preferences and pricing is marketing, not purely economics.
What do you think economics is about if it doesn't include preferences and their expression.
Btw., we have nearly endless information on the movement of money and credit.
Informationally, this post lands on information regarding randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there isn't a specific thesis I can nail down outside of introducing a general audience to the history and philosophy of RCTs. There is some discussion regarding how they aren't a panacea, but its more of an afterthought.
I really liked Judea Pearl take on RCTs in his "The Book of Why". It is not much of the history or philosophy, but he show why RCTs works, why randomness do the trick, he does it from the standpoint of a wider theory of a causation that can explain not just RCT but also other methods of untangling causes and effects, and therefore it becomes easy to him to talk why RCTs may not work.