NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/econ/9602

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
From: [e-mail] (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:50:30 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Oracle News Poster)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Lines: 127
Nntp-Posting-Host: mailseq.us.oracle.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

From: [e-mail] (T. Scott Thompson)
>
>[e-mail] (Karl Wee) writes:
>
>>I didn't mean to say your analysis is invalid.  I meant to say that discussing
>>narrow escape scenarios when everything is about to collapse and when there's
>>still time to save ourselves in a more certain fashion is a little irrelevant.
>
>What is the "scientific" basis for the hypothesis that "everything is
>about to collapse"?  Is there a "scientifically" rigorous basis for
>your concern, or is this merely a linear extrapolation of current
>trends?

Please read the earlier posts.  The man was saying if real interest rate
remains the same, if the economy grows at a certain constant rate until 1999,
etc., then the ratio of debt to GDP  will begin to drop in 1999.  Give
me a break.  The man may have the numbers but no common sense.  It is ludicrous
to talk about narrow escapes which will remain narrow escapes for another few
decades, all dependent on such assumptions remaining true for so long.

It is analyses like this that enable politicians to say "We needn't do
anything radical to balance the budget." If we lack the courage to do
something radical, the chance of escape is very small.

>>However, analysis of your kind is what permits politicians to suit campaigns
>>to their private agendas.  It is because economists focus on nitpicking and
>>forget the big picture and can never agree with each other that politicians
>>can always find some analysis that suits their private needs.
>
>I do not believe that this is correct.  Most economists _do_ agree
>that "politicians can always find some analysis that suits their
>private needs."....

But they don't agree on basic economic questions like the effect of the
debt and the (de)merits of supply side economics, which is what really counts.

>>My entire message has been: when you can't do dependable analyses of
>>outcomes, be conservative.  Hence balance the budget.
>
>By what scientific principle is a balanced budget "conservative"?  The
>only justifications for such a statement that come to mind are either
>(a) based on a particular political philosophy rather than a
>scientific analysis, or (b) implicitly assume some kind of dynamic
>analysis of the sort that you claim are "unreliable."

It is conservative in the sense that it introduces less chaos into the
economic system, chaos caused by investors in govt. bonds losing confidence.
It is conservative in the sense that it avoids the many vicious cycles that
will be set into motion once some part of one cycle happens for some reason.
(I thought I didn't have to explain this to economists.) I guess this would
fit into your category (b).  But it's a fundamentally more reliable analysis
than analyses like the one I was talking about.

>>This is the
>>philosophical underpinning of all sciences and engineering.  Unfortunately,
>>economics tends to ignore it.
>
>I disagree that conservatism is the "philosophical underpinning" of
>all science.  Were Galileo or Copernicus's new models of the solar
>system conservative?  How about Einstein's relativity theories?
>Major advances in science have often occured through radical breaks
>with the accepted wisdom, even when the new ideas went against the
>"common sense" of their time.

I didn't mean anything close to it.  Scientists and engineers do not try to
describe the dynamics of a rough piece of stone rolling down a rough
slope.  They don't consider this kind of stuff "new ideas".  They avoid it
like a plague.  They design their systems based on SURE knowledge of how
subsystems WILL work.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that chasing hopelessly
after chaos is what economists do all day long.  Worse yet, they introduce it
into society by comission or omission.  Believe me, your analytical tools will
NEVER catch up with the chaos in this world, and apparently only scientists
and engineers truly appreciate this.

>Your statement perhaps is more true for engineering.  Since
>"economics" is expected to play a dual role (i.e. "scientific" study
>of economic behavior on the one hand vs. policy analysis, or "social
>engineering" on the other) I don't see that conservatism necessarily
>_ought_ to be an "underpinning" for all economic analysis.

It should be an underpinning of all economic PRESCRIPTION, if not description.
Prescription is what we're talking about here.

>And most economists are sick and tired of being beat up for their
>supposedly "non-scientific" behavior by people who are unwilling or
>unable to define "real" science, and whose knowledge of modern
>economics and of what economists actually do is limited to a few
>undergraduate courses and to what they read in the newspaper.

Wait a minute.  Is it not true that practicing economomist disagree on
basic economic questions (as I pointed out above)?  Is it not true that,
when studying most economic issues, one gets different conclusions depending
on which route of reasoning one takes?  Doesn't sound like science to me.
Is it not true that economics lacks meaningful fundamental
laws or fundamental conventions that everyone agrees on?  That economists
are not even trying to get this but indulge in their mathematical models of
imaginary systems? That they have had nowhere near the level of
uncontroversial contribution to mankind that science and engineering have
brought?  That despite their funding by society, economists have not
produced or tried to produce any real, working system that requires an
economist's understanding, that ordinary people won't find intuitively
obvious?  Where's all your higher math used?  Can you ever produce or advocate
a real system or concept with more than a few easily comprehensible levels of
abstraction?  Can you ever make predictions that systematically come true as
REAL sciences can?

Doesn't sound like a science to me.

It's possible to argue that the state of the social "sciences" is a natural
consequence of the fact that they deal with people.  The bad news, however, is
that you guys don't even TRY to improve this situation by starting to build
foundations on which your future studies can be based (I know that would
involve trying to convince real people and change the real world, but it
goes with the territory).  Instead, you guys carry out studies that resemble
the natural sciences on the surface but are really quite different in nature.
(And quite useless, as we've found out) By keeping this superficial
resemblance, you have been able to attract most of your funding.  I consider
this one of the biggest robberies in history.

THAT'S why it's hard not to get emotional, especially now that you are, in
my opinion, about to contribute to the downfall of our economy and way of
life through your silent complicity in the national debt.

This is not a question of variations of individual behavior within a group.
On this level there is little.  Most of you guys may be good people, but you
guys chose your profession and are answerable to society (which funds you) for
what you do.