Re:Trump Plans New Curbs on Chinese Investment, Tech Exports...
by citrablue on Monday June 25, 2018 @03:36PM
(#17395138)
If economics is crap, what should we base economic and fiscal policies on?
Re:Trump Plans New Curbs on Chinese Investment, Tech Exports...
by null000 on Monday June 25, 2018 @07:45PM
(#17396812)
I think that the point is that "economist says" should be the beginning of a debate, not the end - it's a data point, but not conclusive evidence in favor of or against whatever's being referenced in most situations
Re:Trump Plans New Curbs on Chinese Investment, Tech Exports...
by citrablue on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @05:12PM
(#17404035)
Unsure why you were downvoted - wasn't me.
What other inputs into the decision should be included? I'm kind of at a loss as to what other approaches would complement an economic one, even acknowledging the severe limitations of the discipline.
Re:Trump Plans New Curbs on Chinese Investment, Tech Exports...
by rory096 on Monday June 25, 2018 @03:27PM
(#17395044)
Over 60% of macro papers published are empirical. Hell, that article you linked includes the phrase "carefully assembled evidence."
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/an-empirical-turn-in-...
That's the problem with all pseudosciences - politics, social sciences, etc. Everyone has an opinion and they can't provide any empirical tests to get at the truth.
That's the difference between a science like physics and a pseudoscience like economics.
It's why two economists with contradictory views can win a nobel prize at the same time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-profe...
It's fundamentally nonsense.
> Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"
Because a geologist can show you that igneous rocks are not "bullshit". Empirically, physically. They can provide empirical tests to differentiate an igneous rock from bullshit.