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

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#61

Post by trentnix »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #54
trentnix wrote: post #42

We in the USA live in the most gilded time in history, partially thanks to free markets and all the reasons the author bemoans. All income levels experience a level of prosperity without equal. Our poor are obese, unemployment is low, and the access to career altering knowledge and skills has never been better. A dip in the economy is overdue yet here we are, still experiencing a historic period of growth and economi…

Poor being obese is not a sign of prosperity. There are many countries that are not prosperous at all with obesity problems. Obesity can be due to genetics, lack of access to healthy food or time for recreation, etc. High unemployment doesn't mean much if real wages are dropping for most people and necessities like housing or Healthcare are becoming less affordable even for those employed. I agree that there are peop…

Once upon a time being poor absolutely meant being hungry. No more.

That is an utterly remarkable change and is unprecedented in all of human history. And so many wizards of smart assured the people of their time that population growth was going to lead to famine. They were dead-ass wrong.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#62

Post by logicchains »

I think there's some misunderstanding due to a disconnect between what economics values and what Joe Public values. For instance, there's a relatively un-controversial mainstream economic theory called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_price_equalization, which predicts that "When two countries enter a free trade agreement, wages for identical jobs in both countries tend to approach each other" (e.g. low-skilled workers in the rich country are now competing with low-skilled workers in the poor country). Economists are fine with this, because the model predicts an overall increase in global standard of living. I suspect however if you asked the voters "would you support a policy that will reduce the standard of living for less-skilled Americans but lift hundreds of millions of people in Asia out of poverty", support would be far from unanimous.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#63

Post by ethbro »

jcfrei wrote: post #56
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing makes me think economics is scientific. But it's taught as if it's a science, handled inside academia as if it's a science, and has more influence on policy than hard science does. If it's not a science, those three facts are rather curious.

Whether something is a science or not depends on the methods which are applied - not how much is known about the subject. You could argue that biology is not a science because we don't understand how lots of basic cell functions work.

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 practitioners that their subject matter is elusive to experimental inquiry. One does the best one can.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#64

Post by trentnix »

tomrod wrote: post #45
colek42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific kind of military do you get? The US military I was a part of was the most diverse group of men and women I have ever worked with in just any metric you can find.

I believe parent commentator was making a claim to lack of philosophical diversity, and that a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. I see the margin the parent commentator is trying to make, but feel it misses people who join the military to obtain gainful employment, get education, or numerous other reasons.

The issue you identify is a good reason why our system of government, which places an elected, term-limited civilian as the commander of the military, is extremely clever. We end up with an effective military, but have a counterbalance to a military acting as a hammer constantly looking for nails.

The people involved are certainly imperfect (and some are more imperfect than others), but we're always just a few years away from a course correction if the electorate sees fit.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#65

Post by goatinaboat »

tomrod wrote: post #45
colek42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific kind of military do you get? The US military I was a part of was the most diverse group of men and women I have ever worked with in just any metric you can find.

I believe parent commentator was making a claim to lack of philosophical diversity, and that a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. I see the margin the parent commentator is trying to make, but feel it misses people who join the military to obtain gainful employment, get education, or numerous other reasons.

a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy.

The military gets no say - wars are declared, or not, by elected politicians. What you say is only true in countries where the military runs the government.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#66

Post by naasking »

colek42 wrote: post #35
klez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons the draft can be a good idea. When the military is only voluntary you get a military with specific ideas about foreign policy and how you see the enemy, whoever they are. If you introduce the draft you have a more heterogenous military.

What specific kind of military do you get? The US military I was a part of was the most diverse group of men and women I have ever worked with in just any metric you can find.

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

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#67

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

codingslave wrote: post #36
abhinai wrote: post #10

Blame no one. I sincerely doubt if humans truly understand economics. I mean we have the data for last 100 years. Maybe more. And everything we know today has been inferred from this data. But honestly, how do we know how economy is supposed to behave over a 20 year period in a world of high frequency trading, automated trading, disruptive technologies, globalization, ability to work remotely, a Continental currency…

Computerized trading has minimal impact on real asset prices, it just adds efficiency and liquidity. Bitcoin is mostly used as a speculative investment vehicle and for illegal transactions. Most technology (Google/FB), took an existing industry and computerized it (Advertising). Nothing is new, and the situation we are in now was discussed 20 years ago as a possibility, just not by the economists and politicians in p…

It does also add new vectors for error propagation.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#68

Post by gbacon »

zbsisbd wrote: post #31
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on how easy it is to get out if it. If the influential always go to the coast guard or whatever, war is less meaningful for those in power.

“That depends on how easy it is to get out if it.” Exactly. That’s why I despise ppl whose connections got them out of the draft. For everyone of those punks, another one of McNamara's morons had to be drafted. Mohamad Ali, on the other hand, he had the courage to go to jail. Burn your draft card, escape to Canada, or simply refuse. But those who use university exemptions or bone spurs can go to hell.

Even though Ali had the courage to go to jail, by your reasoning in the previous paragraph, someone else “had to” be drafted in his place.

Perhaps you won’t go so far as to call conscription kidnapping, but you seem to sympathize at least a bit with people having scruples over being shipped off involuntarily to wage aggressive war. Now, you may admit that some are principled objectors, and others may simply believe that dirty work is beneath them. The more important question is whether the draft is just. If so, then any refusal by the able is wrong, and if not, we may not condemn resistance in any peaceful form.

The reality of deferments for the politically connected and most especially those for the children and grandchildren of politicians who vote for war makes utter propaganda the notion that disinterested philosopher-kings or a technocratic elite are merely acting to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#69

Post by naasking »

goatinaboat wrote: post #65
tomrod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe parent commentator was making a claim to lack of philosophical diversity, and that a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. I see the margin the parent commentator is trying to make, but feel it misses people who join the military to obtain gainful employment, get education, or numerous other reasons.

a voluntary military is more prone to prefer war over diplomacy. The military gets no say - wars are declared, or not, by elected politicians. What you say is only true in countries where the military runs the government.

Military officers advise politicians. It seems silly to believe they have zero sway over political opinions.

Re: Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In

#70

Post by tonyedgecombe »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53
abhinai wrote: post #10

Blame no one. I sincerely doubt if humans truly understand economics. I mean we have the data for last 100 years. Maybe more. And everything we know today has been inferred from this data. But honestly, how do we know how economy is supposed to behave over a 20 year period in a world of high frequency trading, automated trading, disruptive technologies, globalization, ability to work remotely, a Continental currency…

> I sincerely doubt if humans truly understand economics This exaggerates our ignorance. Microeconomics is well understood, down to producing testable hypotheses. In macroeconomics, we can draw broad lessons. We know, with respect to elected governments, economies with independent central banks outperform those with political ones. We know there is a relationship between interest rates, money supply and inflation, ev…

We know, with respect to elected governments, economies with independent central banks outperform those with political ones.

We know there is a correlation, that's all. I happen to think that an independent central bank is a good idea but that is little more than a guess based on my low opinion of the political class.

Post reply on HN