[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

All the time we are told that your science has the handle on truth.

By whom?

andyt andyt:

You tell me not to look behind the curtain, that if a few economists disagree with whatever your position is, it doesn't mean anything, you have the mathematical truth. And then time and time again, economists can't predict what happens next, are way off.

Where did you get the idea that economists can predict the future any more than anyone else can? You sure as hell didn't get that idea from me, nor from any other economist.

andyt andyt:

Yo yourself, maybe even in this thread, admitted that you are questioning the idea (don't know the technical term for it) that allowing countries to specialize in what they are good at is the way to go. Yet I'm sure up til this point you would have argued tooth and nail that it was the only logical position to take, that you have the proof that it's the best answer. And it is - until it isn't.

You're confusing the role of the economist. It's not our job to tell anyone whether it's the way to go or not. We just tell you what to expect if you do. You need to focus your anger on decision makers, not information providers. When you rip economists as you have, you're blaming the waiter instead of the chef.

[andyt]

Telling us what to expect if we do is predicting the future. And economists aren't the waiters, they are the recipe makers that they tell the cooks are the way to go. The prediction from economists as a whole was that specialization was the way to go. Now we're running into the problems from that prediction.

Economists claim to have the information that allow the rest of society to make decisions how to organized themselves as far as the economy is concerned. (And not just the economy, but when economists tell us that income inequality is a good thing, and it then leads to greater crime and health costs and less social cohesion, it affects more than just the economy). And as I say, time after time, that information turns out to have been less valid than claimed.

You say you are a libertarian. That's as bad as hard core socialism on what the resulting social effects will be. People are just way more complicated than simple ideologies can deal with.

[housewife]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

housewife housewife:

I miss real stewing beef. Ok now I'm going to have to find a local place and get stewing beef and heart... stuffed and baked I haven't had cows tongue in years either.

Go to a small butcher, not a grocery store. They can get whatever you want. Mine is trained as a German sausage maker, so he carries many blissful items. (And is not Halal!) And even has smoked beef liver as dog treats.

You are right. I will have to get to our local one more often. Hubby found a polish deli of course now he has to share with baby who is sure if grandpa is eating it must be good.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Telling us what to expect if we do is predicting the future.

No, it's not. We tell you what is likely to happen, ceteris paribus. Pretend you're emperor of Canada. You say to me "Hey, economist, our dollar is too low, what should we do?" I can tell you that, with everything going on right now, if we increase interest rates, the value of the dollar will go up. The next day you increase interest rates on my advice, but the price of oil falls and the dollar tumbles farther. Does that mean I was wrong?

andyt andyt:

And economists aren't the waiters, they are the recipe makers that they tell the cooks are the way to go. The prediction from economists as a whole was that specialization was the way to go. Now we're running into the problems from that prediction.

Dead wrong. We told people that specialization provides potential gains from those who participate. The fact that those gains turned out to be stolen by wealthy corporations instead of being shared among the citizens isn't on economists. The fact that environmental standards were ignored in those third world countries isn't on economists. We just outlined the potential for gains. The blame lies with governments and corporations for how they rigged the game. The chefs, not the waiters.

andyt andyt:

Economists claim to have the information that allow the rest of society to make decisions how to organized themselves as far as the economy is concerned. (And not just the economy, but when economists tell us that income inequality is a good thing, and it then leads to greater crime and health costs and less social cohesion, it affects more than just the economy). And as I say, time after time, that information turns out to have been less valid than claimed.

Wrong again. All economists do is tell you were efficiency lies. How you "organize things" requires the input of decision-makers. We aren't that.

What economist claimed that income inequality is a good thing?

andyt andyt:

You say you are a libertarian. That's as bad as hard core socialism on what the resulting social effects will be. People are just way more complicated than simple ideologies can deal with.

Just like with the term "economist" you're substituting your definition of "libertarian" with the real one. What do you perceive about libertarianism that is "less complicated" or "simple"? What "social effects" do you presume I'm inadvertently advocating for?

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Telling us what to expect if we do is predicting the future.

No, it's not. We tell you what is likely to happen, ceteris paribus. Pretend you're emperor of Canada. You say to me "Hey, economist, our dollar is too low, what should we do?" I can tell you that, with everything going on right now, if we increase interest rates, the value of the dollar will go up. The next day you increase interest rates on my advice, but the price of oil falls and the dollar tumbles farther. Does that mean I was wrong?

You were wrong if you confined your advice to just how to raise the dollar, without looking at the total picture.

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

And economists aren't the waiters, they are the recipe makers that they tell the cooks are the way to go. The prediction from economists as a whole was that specialization was the way to go. Now we're running into the problems from that prediction.

Dead wrong. We told people that specialization provides potential gains from those who participate. The fact that those gains were turned out to be stolen by wealthy corporations instead of being shared among the citizens isn't on economists. The fact that environmental standards were ignored in those third world countries isn't on economists. We just outlined the potential for gains. The blame lies with governments and corporations. The chefs, not the waiters.

Well maybe we're all to blame for not making that clear. And economists should again be looking at the bigger picture. Lots talked about how efficient it was to move manufacturing to China - they didn't know about the environmental standards here, nor that everybody in Canada couldn't just move over to the tech sector and such?

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Economists claim to have the information that allow the rest of society to make decisions how to organized themselves as far as the economy is concerned. (And not just the economy, but when economists tell us that income inequality is a good thing, and it then leads to greater crime and health costs and less social cohesion, it affects more than just the economy). And as I say, time after time, that information turns out to have been less valid than claimed.

Wrong again. All economists do is tell you were efficiency lies. How you "organize things" requires the input of other professionals.

What economist claimed that income inequality is a good thing?

The whole Friedman bunch and Calgary school etc. Pointed to colonial Hong Kong as the best example of how to run an economy. Of course some inequality is a good thing - but it is being way overdone.

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

You say you are a libertarian. That's as bad as hard core socialism on what the resulting social effects will be. People are just way more complicated than simple ideologies can deal with.

Just like with the term "economist" you're substituting your definition with the real one. What do you perceive about my political persuasion that is "less complicated" or "simple"? What "social effects" do you presume I'm advocating for?

A form of social Darwinism. That's what libertarianism leads to. The powerful totally dominating the less powerful which does not make a cohesive, creative society, but a feudal one. People are just not equal actors who can make fair agreements between themselves. Even people of more or less equal force of personality and intelligence would make a mess of it, is my guess. And we're not that as people.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

You were wrong if you confined your advice to just how to raise the dollar, without looking at the total picture.

But that's not my job. It's the politicians' job to look at the whole picture. You're blaming economists for the failure of politicians.

andyt andyt:

Well maybe we're all to blame for not making that clear. And economists should again be looking at the bigger picture. Lots talked about how efficient it was to move manufacturing to China - they didn't know about the environmental standards here, nor that everybody in Canada couldn't just move over to the tech sector and such?

We gave people the potential benefits and potential costs. The risks were estimated as we could with the information at hand.

andyt andyt:

The whole Friedman bunch and Calgary school etc. Pointed to colonial Hong Kong as the best example of how to run an economy. Of course some inequality is a good thing - but it is being way overdone.

Labeling "economists" with that blanket is exactly the same as painting all Muslims with the same brush as a handful of jihadis.

andyt andyt:

A form of social Darwinism. That's what libertarianism leads to. The powerful totally dominating the less powerful which does not make a cohesive, creative society, but a feudal one. People are just not equal actors who can make fair agreements between themselves. Even people of more or less equal force of personality and intelligence would make a mess of it, is my guess. And we're not that as people.

Incorrect. I'd typed out a long explanation of why you're wrong, but let's stick to your misconceptions about economists for now and leave your misconceptions about libertarianism for another time.

Oh yeah, there IS a Nobel Prize in Economics.