The Political & Philosophy Thread

[arg]

The best economics is laissez-faire classical economics which says let the economy regulate itself with minimal government interference to get the optimal result, let businesses fail and let people starve/die, pretty right-wing.

Bad economics is Keynesian economics which includes printing shitloads of money, currency and interest rate manipulation, massive regulations and wealth redistribution, which are often driven by lefty motives (and also crony corporate motives which are also bad) and result in fucking everything up

 

[Dak]

Economists really have very little to go on when it comes to future projections. While most economists now lean left, there's still quite a divide between them; and it's crucial to consider the impact of politics on an economist's theoretical outlook. Climate change scientists are now suffering the same exposure. Fortunately, from my perspective at least, the science underscoring climate change is far less political than the science underscoring economics; it's the proposed measures in response to climate change that are political.

So long as political rhetoric and ideology continue to interfere with popular behavior, economists' predictions will rarely be accurate (i.e. economists' predictions will always be inaccurate ).

5 Democrats to every 1 Republican in economics is hardly "quite a divide" imo (last #s I saw).

 

[Einherjar86]

I've read that it's 70% democrat among economists (roughly speaking). 70/30 is a significant majority, but it's not so vast as to drown out minority views.

Additionally, the relative division between economic outlooks as it filters into and throughout the public sphere is hotly debated, often on ideological grounds, and often on rather equal footing. You can't really draw direct lines from economic theory to popular opinions on the economy since the majority of people don't understand economic theory (myself included); but I think the average opinion on economic policy is fairly evenly divided, where it's discernible. And I think this reflects a fairly even distribution, or promotion, of right-wing vs. left-wing economic theories in the popular media.

 

[Dak]

I've read that it's 70% democrat among economists (roughly speaking). 70/30 is a significant majority, but it's not so vast as to drown out minority views.

Economic "Schools" are quite divided, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were determined that that 70/30 split is effectively 100%/100% in terms of echo chamber/research silos.

Additionally, the relative division between economic outlooks as it filters into and throughout the public sphere is hotly debated, often on ideological grounds, and often on rather equal footing. You can't really draw direct lines from economic theory to popular opinions on the economy since the majority of people don't understand economic theory (myself included); but I think the average opinion on economic policy is fairly evenly divided, where it's discernible. And I think this reflects a fairly even distribution, or promotion, of right-wing vs. left-wing economic theories in the popular media.

I don't think most people have any sort of principled opinion on economics (as is the case with anything else). They want money, and whatever theory appears to support their easiest or preferred path to it is accepted - which may even change multiple times over time.

 

[CiG]

The best economists in my opinion don't specifically lean left or right but rather lean libertarian.

 

[Draehl]

I typically find this type of stuff tiring, but found this particularly interesting.

Part Philosophical (especially later in the video regarding materialism) and part (pseduo)science. Either he's on to something deeper or has done an excellent job of piecing together several phenomenon into a cohesive theory. All that being said, he never suggests the manner in which this unseen force is communicated. That may play into the element of "not everything in the world is mechanistic" but I would still think an idea as to what allows this to occur could be presented, even if it's not measurable.

(The title of the video is misleading, I wouldn't say it's specifically about a sixth sense)

 

[arg]

The best economists in my opinion don't specifically lean left or right but rather lean libertarian.

Milton Friedman ftw

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The best economists in my opinion don't specifically lean left or right but rather lean libertarian.

Like all the ones who were saying "buy gold" when gold was near $2000/oz, or have been predicting hyperinflation and a "double dip" recession for the past 8 years? Libertarian economists are narrow-minded, and have a track record of wrong predictions that at least rivals if not surpasses that of mainstream economists.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Here are two pieces of mainstream economics that deserve a bit more credit than the "pseudoscience" label. The Treasury yield curve and ISM index are not only good explanations for recessions but have done well at predicting them, and I hear both regularly cited in mainstream financial news (albeit amidst a bunch of useless noise to fill air time):

Note - the "shifted six months forward" in the ISM chart means the ISM was at the indicated level six months before the S&P 500 earnings in the chart were reported. In other words, manufacturer spending has been very accurate at predicting where corporate earnings are about to go.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

And if we're being fair, this is the point of surveys - to take a sampling and extrapolate from there. That's all that NYT is doing. It's really not all that misleading to say "most" if readers understand the extrapolation.

I disagree. I don't think it's the job of journalists to assume the authority to extrapolate from a small piece of data to a broad assumption, and then put that assumption in a headline like "Why Most Economists Are So Worried About Trump" as if the data is so conclusive there's no need for you to dig deeper and discover how little of it there actually is.

That kind of practice allows a journalist's subjective hunches (often on matters where they have little education or professional diligence) to be taken as seriously as the facts themselves, which as I recall is why people have been complaining about outfits like Fox News for the past decade or two.

To be fair would be to have a headline like "Poll of Economists Shows Concern About Trump", or something that accurately describes the article's content without going out of the way to feed assumptions to the reader.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. I don't think it's the job of journalists to assume the authority to extrapolate from a small piece of data to a broad assumption, and then put that assumption in a headline like "Why Most Economists Are So Worried About Trump" as if the data is so conclusive there's no need for you to dig deeper and discover how little of it there actually is.

That kind of practice allows a journalist's subjective hunches (often on matters where they have little education or professional diligence) to be taken as seriously as the facts themselves, which as I recall is why people have been complaining about outfits like Fox News for the past decade or two.

To be fair would be to have a headline like "Poll of Economists Shows Concern About Trump", or something that accurately describes the article's content without going out of the way to feed assumptions to the reader.

Does the author of the article choose the headline? Or is the headline designed by someone further up the ladder to act as "click bait" for online readers?

As to the rest of your response, point taken. I just think that this particular article might not be a good example because the impetus for the title likely isn't only the survey; it's also the fact that the economists at the conference, which the journalist attended, were also saying that most economists feel that way. So it isn't the journalist's subjective opinion. It's also the opinion of people in the field, that is, economists.

 

[Dak]

Here are two pieces of mainstream economics that deserve a bit more credit than the "pseudoscience" label. The Treasury yield curve and ISM index are not only good explanations for recessions but have done well at predicting them, and I hear both regularly cited in mainstream financial news (albeit amidst a bunch of useless noise to fill air time):

I also like the Baltic Dry Index.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BDIY:IND

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not familiar with that one, I'll read up on it.

Update - found this handy 30-year chart:

It was low during the late '80s expansion, but I'm willing to chalk that up to implementation snags. Doesn't seem to definitively mark the two recessions of the '90s, though, and the mid-2010s looks full of false alarms.

I assume the volatility of oil prices is going to undermine the reliability of an index based on shipping prices. If you were to derive a separate indicator using the short-term volatility of this one, I could see that having promise given the long construction time of these ships, but a lot would still depend on how they factor in new ships when they do go in service.

I'll admit, the leading indicators I follow are mostly US-centric, so it's interesting to contemplate a global indicator like this which potentially circumvents the spottier nature of global economic data. I'm not sure this alone can give investors enough confidence to make bigger bets outside the more transparent economies, though.

 

[Dak]

I assume the volatility of oil prices is going to undermine the reliability of an index based on shipping prices. If you were to derive a separate indicator using the short-term volatility of this one, I could see that having promise given the long construction time of these ships, but a lot would still depend on how they factor in new ships when they do go in service.

I'll admit, the leading indicators I follow are mostly US-centric, so it's interesting to contemplate a global indicator like this which potentially circumvents the spottier nature of global economic data. I'm not sure this alone can give investors enough confidence to make bigger bets outside the more transparent economies, though.

It's not so dependent on oil price specifically. If there's a weakness as I understand the index it is in the potential contraction in the number of container ships. Overall it tracks the shipping level of raw materials/material goods. In the current globalized economy, a lack of shipping goods relative to the shipping capacity indicates an expected lack of demand. Generally, demand for goods will probably lag behind what will be retroactively determined to be a real recession. It's not necessarily a prognosticator of what you hear in the news, but it should provide a very solid measure of the "real" state of the economy.

I thought Trump's inauguration speech was well written with a well oriented sentiment. Too bad it's worth about what the paper it's printed on is.

 

[rms]

it's crazy how the only good thing he's done is offer up Mattis. Everyone else is a joke or just plain terrible.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

We're living in Kali Yuga now:

 

[tagradh]

Economics should be based on quantitative economic formulas / principles which are inherently right-wing; you have no business being an economist if you're a lefty and can fuck off

You're such a fucking idiot.

 

[Einherjar86]

Took to the streets today. It was pleasantly energetic and nonviolent.

 

[Dak]

I don't get the reference unfortunately.

I'm not sure I understand the whole "taking to the streets" thing. I have a bazillion things I need to do and/or want to do, and all seem more enjoyable than milling about in a crowd. I guess maybe if A. I was angry enough or B. I thought that milling about in a crowd would have some sort of demonstrable effect, I might do this:

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Yeah, because protesting never accomplished anything. Ever heard of MLK? Cesar Chavez?

Protesting accomplishes several things.
1. It sends a message to Trump and his administration. There is no mandate and you, your policies, and values are rejected by a massive portion of the population.

2. Representatives: You better represent the will of the people if you want to keep your jobs.

3. Be ready for a fight. The most powerful states and cities in the union overwhelmingly reject you and we're ready to stand up against us.

Now granted, the real test will be when there's something specific to protest and the protest comes at a cost, but this is a first step.

Oh and I forgot a 4th reason. When you feel like your country has gone to shit, it feels good to know you live around thousands of people who are as outraged as you. It's motivating during a time of despair.