I was referring to the difference between psychology (of which thymology is a very basic kind) and economics.
Name them. In any case, the whole reason Austrians point out the ridiculousness of positivistic economics is that essentially any conclusion can be drawn from them, the economist lacking constants and having only variables.
The main point was that business forecasts are not the same thing as economics.
@ Mustang
My apologies if I overlooked anything in that thread, it’s very long. I’ll look over the thread again.
Serpentis:
It’ll be quite a dig. But I can look up some of what Smith said about infrastructure, if you like.
Nail on the head. Although I’d never call you dogmatic. At least just this one time. You did say you were willing to accept empirical evidence.
Had I posted something equivalent on another ideology fanclub site I probably would be banned. I appreciate that you guys are willing to discuss.
Zandi is pretty well known.
Moody’s, IHS, you name it are all spouting statist lies too.
edit: And PIMCO. “The ECB must, at some juncture in the not so distant future, become a lender of last resort to eurozone sovereigns. And, equally important, it must do so with a transparent and credible plan such that private sector demand for eurozone sovereign debt is crowded back in before it is permanently destroyed.”
An economist working for one of these banks might disagree. Then again, your defintion of “economist” and “economics” probably differs from my dictionary one.
Do other fields of science derive all variables from constants? Biology? Chemistry? Physics? Is the savings/investment identity not a constant?
You bring up a praxeological point to argue against praxeology? The quantities of these things are unknown: there are not necessarily any savings, there is no necessary level of savings.
That doesn’t negate the quantity. Zero savings and zero investment (or any other value) is still an identity. And this doesn’t address how the fact that metal conductivity changes at different temperatures invalidates contemporary thermodynamics.
edit: FWIW, the defintions of “constants” and “variables” in a theory are purely semantic. Any “constant” can be redefined as a "variable, or any “variable” set to a specific “constant”, depending on the application of the theory. In this respect, economics is no different from any other mathematical field.
So if all hedge funds hired psychics, that would make being a psychic a correct theory?
These are private industries who are looking at various skill sets in hiring, we can not calculate for them which skill sets are good or bad for them to hire. Moreover we are not even capable of saying if they are “winning” or “losing”, it is out of scope.
If learning to “generally like empiricism”, or to take certain courses that make you better at interacting with the market a better financial analyst so be it.
I think there is a youtube clip somewhere where some college kid asked empiricist Milton Friedman why he wasn’t rich from knowing about markets, his answer was something along the lines of it being a whole different skill set. People with philosophy degrees can become computer scientists or whatever.
Either way, point stands it is not for s to tell what is or is not good for private firms to hire - it is a gibberish question.
will all the hedge funds which hire these economists fail?
No science can predict the future, psychics though.
“The future is unkowable, though not unimaginable” - Ludwig Lachmann
It still seems like something has to be done about these hedge funds. By lending credence to statist economic policy, they’re subsidizing those annoying mainstream economists that give you so many problems.
Economists can only give other economists probelms when they discuss economics with each other.
A Monopoly player does not give another monopoly player a problem when he wins at Stratego.
As for “statist economic policy” - that is a political affair
Zandi said that the Obama stimulus was a success. It lowered unemployment and stopped the nosedive in output. Wasn’t it evil of him to have said that, even as manager of a financial firm?
Wasn’t it evil of him to have said that, even as manager of a financial firm?
That’s a moral question, and one I am not capable of answering. Seriously, this is getting really left field
Also:
If your argument is this:
Zandi said that the Obama stimulus was a success. It lowered unemployment and stopped the nosedive in output
You are going to have to rephrase it, because the construction of the sentence is hinged off either Zandi’s athority or aesthetic preference and nothing else - so there is no argument there.
Very well. If you ever set up an investment bank on Austrian principles and need someone to buy your default swaps, lemme know.
How are you defining “free market”? I don’t see how a free market exists in the United States.
Yes they were. I also corrected some of them in this thread. Of course, there is no so blind as he who refuses to see.
Yep, the government is bailing out Mark Zandi so he can write pro-Obama propoganda. We found our explanation.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, there seem to be flaws with those analysts’ methodology.
Mild uncertainty is not proof.
Were you actually replying to me? I don’t see how this gives me your definition for “free market”.
Sorry, I meant to say that America is communist.
Perhaps you’d be so bold as to explain in more detail just what in the world this means.