Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

"Sowell is a highly renowned economist and Friedman is one of the most renowned economists of all time."
So I should believe them when they say things which are contradictory to my own observations?
That's an appeal to authority.

***
I'm not discrediting the men. I'm saying those videos are propaganda.

To compare the way they pick certain facts which support their preconceived ideas - to a scientist citing certain measurements to illustrate an idea which they have sought, yet failed, to disprove - is a false equivalence.

If there are facts which would illustrate that the scientist's theory is incorrect, and that scientist intentionally ignores or suppress those facts by implication, then that scientist would have no credibility in their field. They would not be among my favorite scientists.

The notion that the shallowness is the same is also a false equivalence. When an astronomer says that satellites follow elliptical orbits, without any evidence or proof is not the same as someone spouting racist or nationalist generalizations. In the former case, it is plainly and unequivocally demonstrable by examining any of the facts on the subject. In the latter, there are myriad counter examples which belie the fact that one can only come to the same conclusions by picking and choosing the same "facts" in the same context.

This is not the medium by which what you want from them is addressed. The same is true for Feynman and Tyson. The equivalence is not false.

They are not citing data that only supports them. I'm not sure why you think they are, perhaps because you disagree with them so you assume they must be cherry picking. But the points they make come from analysis of all the available data. The stuff Friedman said is super consensus among the experts, and the stuff Sowell said is a theory that he thinks the data (all the data) support.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is not the medium by which what you want from them is addressed. The same is true for Feynman and Tyson. The equivalence is not false.

They are not citing data that only supports them. I'm not sure why you think they are, perhaps because you disagree with them so you assume they must be cherry picking. But the points they make come from analysis of all the available data. The stuff Friedman said is super consensus among the experts, and the stuff Sowell said is a theory that he thinks the data (all the data) support.

Economics is Philosophy.

Pick up any real science and see the difference.

[wufwugy]

Economics is Philosophy.

Pick up any real science and see the difference.

Back to this then?

Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.

Nothing happens because it's impossible. I remember some dude said that Europe would never go to war because they were all making too much money - smash cut - WW1 - WW2.

People say all sorts of stuff. His claim was not a reasonable claim purely on the premise. To borrow his phrasing, people actually weren't making that much money.

No, you're just so deep in one single avenue of human philosophical study that you can't see the wood for the trees - is my point.

I spend a decent deal of my reading time on what you say I do not.

An accident that happens every time. See US, Hong Kong, Singapore.

Now that we have that settled, no reason to understand it. Let's just stick to determinism.

[a500lbgorilla]

Now that we have that settled, no reason to understand it.

Sure, why does it seem to happen every time?

[wufwugy]

Sure, why does it seem to happen every time?

First off, "it" doesn't exactly happen every time. An element of authoritarianism is that it is authoritarian over all, else it isn't fully authoritarianism, which is a type of contradiction in definition. Yet elements of various societies show a different amount of authoritarianism in different ways. This shows it isn't necessarily a necessity, and instead more like emergent from other elements that may or may not be natural, so to speak.

One of the main options I think to be most credible is that the state is trending. When it's the trend, it tends to stay the trend. For example, one use of clothing is to hide tits. This isn't exactly a natural state of human life, but it's something we're always going to do partly because we always do it.

Even if you and I were gods and we had proven that the state is not the natural way of humankind, any reasonable assessment of the future we could provide would include a trending towards the state by human civilizations for quite some time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.

This is true.

There are many other reasons that economics is not a hard scientific field.

Science is a rigorous methodology by which we, as individuals, strive never to be misled, even by ourselves. It is a system which produces falsifiable statements, which have not been shown to be false, under any known, verifiable, repeatable method. This gives rise to a rigorous use of language which demands thorough definition for each key term under investigation. Ultimately, science is about making clear definitions into clear statements, and not being fooled into believing a false statement.

The benefit of science is to make predictions which bear out future observations. The ultimate goal of science is to allow humans to predict the future, insofar as the future can be predicted.

Whether or not a field can produce controlled experiments can be a severe impediment to establishing a rigid language, with precise definitions. This can make the process of producing falsifiable statements cumbersome.

***
I think it's fair to say that, no matter how old the texts on the subject are, the field of Economics is in its infancy. There is no widespread agreement among economists (even nationally, let alone globally) on anything beyond the most loose and broad definitions. There is still rich debate on the most fundamental principles. I.e. economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

There's nothing wrong with being in the baby steps of understanding the beast that is the entire notion of "understanding the movement of resources, what motivates humans to do so, and the consequences of such."

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry. What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

A hard science must produce deterministic results. If the outcome is not as predicted, then either more data must be incorporated or the theory needs to be changed or both.

Economics may someday be considered a hard science, but right now, it's just not. This is in no way a disparaging remark about economists. It means they've grabbed the tail of a much more elusive dragon than that of a physicist or chemist.

[wufwugy]

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry.

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

That's not the reason to believe there is little certainty in economics.

This is:

Economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

To the extent that economists can predict any changes in economics, there is merit to calling it a science.
However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this occurs on anything but a micro-scale. I.e. A mighty clever entrepreneur may be able to see an economic niche unfilled and then fill it. However, the economists can not tell us where or when the niches occur, nor what is needed to fill them. At most they can give a broad description of niches.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option." Fine. It was an option. Then the original statement was either a lie or ill-conceived propaganda. Neither gives the field any credibility as a science.

[wufwugy]

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

That's definitely the case, but it's not relevant to what people argue about with regards to economics. What we don't know is at what exact values the supply and demand curves lie, but we do know that the theory explaining why the curves exist are sound. And we know their general areas. Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

There are uncountable falsifiable predictions in economics. Don't let people tell you that it's all guesswork. What economists can't rely on is double blind experimentation (though they technically could, it's not realistic to do so). However, there have been uncountable natural experiments that all show the same thing. For example, earlier we were talking about how price controls affect supply and demand. The theory on this is under total economic consensus because of how robust the findings have been. Price controls have been tried many, many, many times all throughout the world, and every time, where those controls act mostly like independent variables, the movement along the curves, the changes in consumer and producer surpluses, and other relevant factors, behave as predicted.

The field is not weak. An example of regular experimentation is Federal Reserve statements. Some economists make predictions and assess results of market movement based "merely" on what the Fed says. These are very falsifiable things. The stock market reacts in very predictable ways to Fed announcements. The problem is that there is sooooooooooo much noise in the airwaves since the vast majority of people who claim to have economic opinions are not economists (hey me included).

If you watch the popular media, you'd think that the stock market is just one giant pile of bullshit that nobody understands, but the reality is that it's very robust and useful for economists. Some economists believe prediction markets are so robust that they should be used to operate monetary policy (thus eliminating central banks' monetary duties and the millions of hours of brainpower that go into them).

At most they can give a broad description of niches.

Is that even a problem? Economics is by nature broad descriptions. I mean, maybe you're not into that. I am. Macro is my thing.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option."

Yeah, bad economists. There are certainly some who do this (guys like Krugman), but most don't.

[wufwugy]

Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble. What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics. What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.