Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#111

Post by dsfyu404ed »

gojomo wrote: post #8

Applebaum tries to finger "elfin libertarian" Milton Friedman as "the most important figure". But the specific policies he attributes to Friedman don't seem so bad: * end the draft, replace with well-paid all-volunteer military * let international exchange rates vary * evaluate regulations based on the cost-to-save-a-life Does Applebaum want to bring back the draft? Put exchange rates back under direct political cont…

Unfortunately evaluating regulations based on the cost to save a life would be considered heresy in certain circles. Not spending the entire GDP to save one more life is ideologically incompatible with a lot of people's beliefs.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#112

Post by throwaway18468 »

sprafa wrote: post #92
ethbro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The relevant question for those bemoaning policy implementations of economic theories is, "If not guided by economics, then by what?" Personally, I prefer a discipline which attempts to treat its subject matter scientifically, even if the sum of experimentally proven knowledge is small. Psychology runs into the same difficulties. But with both (or biology, or high-energy physics), I don't hold it over their…

Behavioural psychology has actually given us a lot of the insights that have now been been expanded into behavioural economics, which is the only branch of economics that has some predictive power (and this in my view makes it scientific). So psychology has issues but I feel like a lot more science to it than people expect, if you look into the right circles.

There is definitely some science in economy, psychology, history, etc. The science of social engineering.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#113

Post by throwaway18468 »

gbacon wrote: post #55
sprafa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good economists do it. What makes you think economics is scientific? To be honest it seems to me we’re at the alchemy level of economics - basically we barely understand what we’re doing

Economics is scientific — and much more complicated than physical sciences because people are involved. If I drop a rock with a certain mass from a tower of a certain height, I can safely assume that my measurements of that one event are representative of all similar events in the future. Predicting based on observations of someone’s behavior today what he will do tomorrow is highly problematic because in a real sens…

This is the difference between the science and not-science. The former allows predicting future, the latter doesn't.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#114

Post by stillbourne »

No, let's blame the real culprit, ignorance.

1. Using 19th century trade implements (tariffs) to wage a 21st century trade war was a dumb idea.

2. Bernake and Powell did too little to raise interest rates higher. While it would have been painful to do so, not doing it will make the next recession more difficult to weather and will likely compound recession with a liquidity crisis.

3. We have learned nothing from the last 40 years of boom and bust and are to scared of to end laissez faire capitalism to prevent it from happening again.

4. Because economics is not taught or is taught poorly the general public don't understand the difference between debt instruments and debt. They then shout ignorant stupidity into their favorite echo chamber and when it echos back they nod in agreement. When their idiot politicians repeat these dumb ideas back to them later they can do nothing but nod their heads in unison and cast their vote for another idiot.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#115

Post by Proven »

sprafa wrote: post #24
gojomo wrote: post #8

Applebaum tries to finger "elfin libertarian" Milton Friedman as "the most important figure". But the specific policies he attributes to Friedman don't seem so bad: * end the draft, replace with well-paid all-volunteer military * let international exchange rates vary * evaluate regulations based on the cost-to-save-a-life Does Applebaum want to bring back the draft? Put exchange rates back under direct political cont…

Friedman also defended a negative income tax which essentially was a form of UBI.

[dead]

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#116

Post by umadon »

gojomo wrote: post #88
defertoreptar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within that context, negative income tax was sought to replace welfare, social security, Medicaid, etc. Is that the case with UBI?

Many UBI supporters still view one of its main benefits the simplification & unified replacement of all such programs. Now, those programs are complicated, involve a lot of overhead, often underutilized, and create unintentional disincentives to work when the "marginal tax rate" (in taxes or lost benefits) sometimes goes over 100%. Offering a simple & big-enough UBI instead can fix all that. (A UBI can also replace m…

UBI can also be inflated away to nothing. It's a neoliberal scam.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#117

Post by gojomo »

umadon wrote: post #116
gojomo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many UBI supporters still view one of its main benefits the simplification & unified replacement of all such programs. Now, those programs are complicated, involve a lot of overhead, often underutilized, and create unintentional disincentives to work when the "marginal tax rate" (in taxes or lost benefits) sometimes goes over 100%. Offering a simple & big-enough UBI instead can fix all that. (A UBI can also replace m…

UBI can also be inflated away to nothing. It's a neoliberal scam.

So can all the other forms of welfare.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#118

Post by naasking »

goatinaboat wrote: post #90
naasking wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diverse on many metrics I'm sure, except probably economic class.

Western militaries for hundreds of years have been working class soldiers and upper or at least upper-middle class officers. The middle-middle class is very underrepresented. This is true even today.

Is there a survey or study of the demographics? I'm genuinely curious about how it currently looks because I have a hard time believing the upper crust bothers with this sort of thing any more. Service just doesn't seem to carry the social weight it once did, and there are plenty of stories of rich kids dodging deployments and the like.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#119

Post by repsilat »

rayiner wrote: post #105

What are Mr. Applebaum's qualifications to address such a weighty topic? He has a B.A. in history and seems to have been a journalist throughout his relatively short career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binyamin_Appelbaum .

His arguments should be qualification enough. Of course, one's arguments are often not qualification enough to be listened to, but publication in the New York Times adds some weight on that side -- they lend him credibility, and if his arguments are well received he pays it back, and if they aren't he defaults and both he and they are poorer for it.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#120

Post by salawat »

rayiner wrote: post #106
gojomo wrote: post #8

Applebaum tries to finger "elfin libertarian" Milton Friedman as "the most important figure". But the specific policies he attributes to Friedman don't seem so bad: * end the draft, replace with well-paid all-volunteer military * let international exchange rates vary * evaluate regulations based on the cost-to-save-a-life Does Applebaum want to bring back the draft? Put exchange rates back under direct political cont…

> Have a purely "feel-it-in-our-guts" approach to regulation That is exactly what they want. The modern world of cost-benefit analysis and economic modeling has been unkind to the whimsical. They want emotions, narrative, and oratory--not reason and data--to guide policy.

Frankly, there's very little difference between the two when the ones making the yardstick are also the ones being measured.

Statistics and measurement are insidious like that. Sometimes you're just not measuring the right things, or the way you are measuring just tells you exactly what you think it should.

What does GDP mean to a worker making only enough to afford to pay medical bills or the rent?

What does * per capita do to assuage the suffering of the mother of 3 working 3 dead end jobs and living out of her car?

What good is the S&P500 closing up 6 points when most can barely afford to put more than what there company matches into the market?

What does anything the Dow does mean to anyone who's retirement on Social Security barely covers what they need to merely remain alive?

Economic modeling seems like it has done one and only one thing well.

Create work for economists to do.

Post reply on HN