tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post6352869803542910863..comments2024-03-19T09:54:37.187+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Inconvenient truths, probablyMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-53816178141263014122017-10-24T00:42:32.166+00:002017-10-24T00:42:32.166+00:00Ah – how much public persuasion occurs by way of m...Ah – how much public persuasion occurs by way of manipulating the burden of proof? In Australia the Productivity Commission's reports very often gets to their preferred policy answers by asserting that approaches it disapproves of "could" lead to some undesirable outcome. I documented in this piece on automotive industry policy. <br /><br />https://www.dropbox.com/s/ynfxmn97yj4wp87/When%20only%20the%20second%20best%20will%20do.pdf?dl=0 <br /><br />Certainly simplifies the argument for those writing the reports. Nicholas Gruenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979019731787830666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-63485617084204522782012-11-29T18:08:38.815+00:002012-11-29T18:08:38.815+00:00According to the Jesse Norman principle:
1. Geol...According to the Jesse Norman principle: <br /><br />1. Geology is not an exact science. Its substantive claims can only ever be more or less probable, though that probability can sometimes confer knowledge.<br /><br />2. So: absolutely categorical statements—statements like “All the evidence is that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, and not 4216 years ago” cannot be purely geological in character.<br /><br />Er, yes they can. The statement in 2 above treats as false what is evidently false.Simon Reynoldsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7296725589912754842012-11-28T09:17:31.142+00:002012-11-28T09:17:31.142+00:00Of course, even your second version is not exactly...Of course, even your second version is not exactly bulletproof. The average earnings statistics have a degree of uncertainty to them, and there are all sorts of questions about the measurement of inflation. So you are already in trouble with Dr Norman when you say "“This decline in real wages". I would suggest "the probable decline in the purchasing power of a statistical construct meant to represent an average employee, which may or may not be relevant to any actual person, in terms of a consumption basket which I believe is probably reasonably representative of the average consumer, which I believe to be outside the normal range of uncertainty of the measuring error". And then the rest goes through.The Rioja Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06462814606739183471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45395718872581812142012-11-26T20:44:43.434+00:002012-11-26T20:44:43.434+00:00If Jonathan had gushed praise on Osborne and said ...If Jonathan had gushed praise on Osborne and said his policies were working and that they were the way forward. Do you think Norman would accuse him of political bias then? Not a chance,he'd be quoting him every chance he got.<br />Grow up Norman and learn to take criticismMark Allannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-48406502984039677432012-11-26T18:27:08.787+00:002012-11-26T18:27:08.787+00:00Very nice post. What makes science real science? O...Very nice post. What makes science real science? Of course logical constraints are compulsory, like making the difference between a probable interpretation, an established fact and a universal proposition. But you also have to be honest intellectually (I mean really looking for the truth, not just arguing for your own interest); and honesty overtakes logic. Your Conservative MP clearly doesn’t want to know the truth and always can find a logical fallacy in your assessment (because economics is a science of the probable). Each one has to wonder if a given argument is really an argument or just a quibble.Benjamin Cartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13056801590693708476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26109771079301064232012-11-25T15:01:41.335+00:002012-11-25T15:01:41.335+00:00I have to say that in all probability this is an e...I have to say that in all probability this is an extremely enlightening and amusing post, although it is possible that I am mistaken in this regard. It could be asserted that some government supporters simply "don't like it up 'em", but it is perhaps too soon to state this with complete confidence.Stefan Sternhttp://www.stefan-stern.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-49756589444905554032012-11-24T16:13:52.317+00:002012-11-24T16:13:52.317+00:00I have commented before on this blog that economis...I have commented before on this blog that economists need to adopt a code of ethics. My previous comment was in the context of whether economics is a science. For that to be the case, economists need to follow the scientific method, and to be seen by others to follow the scientific method. The best way to do that would be to adopt a code of ethics and to introduce sanctions against any economist who broke this code.<br /><br />I would add two further justifications here.<br /><br />Firstly, I have seen numerous examples, in newspapers and on blogs, where economists accuse each other of being unethical, incompetent or both. This occurs between mainstream/left economists and mainstream/right economists, and also between mainstream economists and heterodox economists. When economists behave in this way towards each other, they can have little comeback when a non-economist adopts the same tactics.<br /><br />Secondly, as this example shows, ethical economists need an effective defence against politically motivated charges about their ethics. Most conclusions in macroeconomics have political implications. This is particularly true when the political debate is between free-market and Keynesian policies, and where an economist self-brands himself with one of those labels. Economists are naive if they expect their conclusions to be accepted by ideological politicians who don’t like what they are being told. A code of ethics would provide the best defence against this type of accusation.<br /><br />The most ironic aspect of this subject is that many of the Conservative politicians advocating austerity policies, including David Cameron, studied economics at Oxford University. If Keynesian economics is the best path for us to follow then either economics education at Oxford is ineffective in putting across that case or the politicians are being unethical in ignoring their education for political purposes. In the latter case, they would surely have benefited from being introduced to a code of ethics for economists during their education.<br />Jamienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-2830683121010040932012-11-24T12:18:42.234+00:002012-11-24T12:18:42.234+00:00It looks to me that this strategy is closely relat...It looks to me that this strategy is closely related to the Republican strategy of "compromise." What they try to do, and unfortunately often get, is to have the Democrats (Obama) come up with a compromise as their option, so they can (further) compromise on this. While on their side they certainly don't open the negotiations with a compromise, in fact they tend to add extreme negotiation points to allow "compromising" on (like now putting Obamacare on the table.) So I don't think this is really about political versus economic statements. But rather it is about a certain kind of politician who never wants to compromise, never wants to admit being wrong, and never wants to accept reality over ideology, and who tries to figure out reasons to straight that out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com