Ben Bernanke - Page 4

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-17-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Yes well I worship the voodoo magic in first class with a cocktail in my hand while the non-believers file past with their copies of Who Moved My Cheese.

I did. I moved your cheese. Cheers!

You sold your soul for a cocktail and more leg room? Wow, you are cheap. The devil loves your kind!

**leejo** · 08-17-2008, 09:29 PM

I sold my soul for $1.05 actually.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-17-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I sold my soul for $1.05 actually.

There is just no comeback for something that sad.

**leejo** · 08-17-2008, 09:43 PM

Sure there is, you just don't get the joke.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-17-2008, 09:50 PM

So what is the joke? Or would telling me the joke bring me into the devils embrace?

**leejo** · 08-17-2008, 10:00 PM

"Freedom costs $1.05" is the joke. If I'm going to go to hell for selling my soul, then I'll take freedom in exchange. If I wanted the State to wrap me up in a warm fuzzy blanket in exchange for its promise to take on the burden of all life's struggles, I'd go to that hell, I guess, and worship that devil: I think folks are calling it Obama these days.

So I'll study up on how this economics stuff works and take my chances. I just want to be left alone.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-17-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I just want to be left alone.

It will never happen unless you go find a very deep cave and never come out.

Sorry.

In the end my bet is you wouldn't like it much if you got your wish. At least you can revel in your misery and blame the government for all your woes. In that respect you are just like the Obama lovers.

**leejo** · 08-18-2008, 12:24 AM

No misery. No woes. Life is good. And when I say "left alone" I don't mean live in a cave, I just don't want the government up in my grill. Left alone as in enjoying the blessings of liberty.

xTYBALTx · 08-18-2008, 02:20 AM

Ya know what else doesn't make sense? Quantum physics. Bunch of made up nonsense.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-18-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Ya know what else doesn't make sense? Quantum physics. Bunch of made up nonsense.

Oh, but it does. Quantum physics you can empirically test.

Economics? Can't test so good. Plus economics is dependent on the whims of humans. Who can predict those?

I am not saying that there is nothing at all to economic theory. Of course there is. Just as there is something to voodoo magic. Voodoo magic does affect, both positively and negatively, peoples situation. All I am saying much of it is guess work. It is doing things that make people feel good or confident. What makes people feel good or confident? That is varied and not always the same over time.

I am saying that economics is at least as complicated as global climatology. And who trusts climatologists ability to predict the weather two years out?

Economics is probably much more complicated than climatology. Many more variables in economics than there are in climatology seeing as each individual is a weighted variable. And we all know the predictability of individuals. Individuals have a way of changing the rules just because they know the rules exist so as to maximize their survivability. Clouds don't do that.

At it's core economics is really just a social science. I have taken some social science classes and my degree is in psychology so I have some knowledge of this field. It is anything but a hard science.

When I hear debates about economic theory all I hear is what will make the people feel better. Some of it focuses on what will make the big rich investors feel better so they will invest more. Some of it focuses on what will make the unwashed masses feel better about buying the latest fashion or big screen TV. Some of it is what will make foreign governments trust our government so wars will not erupt.

There are debates about how you get people to produce the goods at just the right time but not produce too many goods.

But almost all of it is about what will make people feel good and trust other people so that they will interact in a nice way. At the same time we do not want people to interact in too exuberant a way. We want them to be a little fearful so that everybody doesn't invest their life saving in tulips.

And that is what voodoo magic is all about. Getting people to behave in a rational manner that benefits not only them but the people around them. The difference is one uses chicken blood and the other uses interest rates.

Yea, yea I know there are numbers to be crunched and formulas to be filled in and executed. And they are important and real. But that is accounting, not economics. Interest rates are manipulated mainly to affect peoples feelings about the situation. It is done to affect the credit supply and thus the amount of money people have available to them.

Money, however, is just an abstraction of the value individuals place in things and behaviors. So even affecting the money supply is about affecting an abstraction of individuals valuations of their world.

xTYBALTx · 08-18-2008, 12:36 PM

Not falsifiable?

Tell me, Gringo - is String Theory falsifiable?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Not falsifiable?

Tell me, Gringo - is String Theory falsifiable?

String theory is, in fact, falsifiable. A big proponent of string theory, Dr. Michio Kaku, made the statement that if the new CERN collider does not produce certain results then string theory has failed or needs to be re-thought. Listen to this pod cast.

I didn't say that theories in social sciences couldn't be falsified. If that was the case it wouldn't be a science at all. I said that it was not a hard science. This means you cannot control for all the variables so it is very hard to come up with direct cause-effect. Usually you have to settle for correlations and probabilities of something being true. These can be very useful but have problems when coming up with solutions to problems.

xTYBALTx · 08-18-2008, 12:48 PM

So the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences is that "hard" sciences can control for all variables?

Dude, pass the bong! Let's make up some more stuff!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Entry on "Hard Science"

There is much difficulty distinguishing between soft and hard sciences because many social sciences, like economics and psychology, use the scientific process to formulate hypotheses and test them using empirical data. Furthermore, many social scientists engage in experimental work within the field of experimental economics. In most cases the methodology used by practitioners of the so-called soft scientist are the same as those used by practitioners of the hard sciences and the only difference is the object studied.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-18-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

So the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences is that "hard" sciences can control for all variables?

Dude, pass the bong! Let's make up some more stuff!

Ahhh yes. Don't argue the point, attempt to discredit the poster. Brilliant tactic and it often works.

The terms "Hard" and "Soft" science are not real terms, of course. "Soft science" is usually thought of as a derogatory term. But after studying psychology for five years I kinda agree with the term and don't see it as derogatory at all. It is simply rare that you come up with an experiment that proves something outright and directly. You must rely on qualitative evidence to support your theories.

So within reason, yes. Physics can control for virtually all variables that are important in testing their theories. They do things like destroy the things they are observing. They have almost complete freedom to manipulate the physical world around them to test their theories.

Those in the social sciences do not have that luxury. Your ability to manipulate humans is severely restricted. There are even restrictions placed on the treatment of animals. Therefore often what you are left with are experiments that approach the theory being tested tangentially.

I bet the same is true for economics. You can't recreate a true, fully functioning economy in a sand box with the variables set like you would like them. You can't introduce some variables into a real economy in the exact amounts you would like. Record the results exactly then start over again with to verify the results. Or start a new economy with slightly different variables.

To be sure those in physics, and other "hard" sciences, must also test things indirectly. But that is usually due to things like scale. And some tests would hamper human activity so it can't be done. A good example is the tests some scientists wanted to do on the effects of vapor trails on global climate. They couldn't very well stop all flights to test their theory.

But, overall, physics can control for far more variables than the social sciences could ever hope to.

xTYBALTx · 08-18-2008, 01:28 PM

So what you're saying is that neither hard nor soft sciences can control all variables, neither hard nor soft sciences can ever conduct their experiments at a scale which matches the phenomena under study, and that in essence all experiments are imperfect.

It is alleged that hard sciences tend to have more control over variables than do soft sciences. Sometimes I would agree that this is certainly true. But it is not always true, and the differential not always necessarily large.

Furthermore, you say that you have worked personally in psychology, and that your experience there convinced you that this truly is an area of "soft science." Let's take a look at what a physics student and computer science researcher has to say about the so-called "soft sciences" after studying experimental economics as CalTech:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Hanson

As a physics student and computer science researcher, I assimilated the usual "hard science" perception that "social science" is an oxymoron -- no one knows much about it, so your opinion is as good as anyone's. When I finally decided I needed social science credentials, to turn my institution hobby into a career, I focused on experimental economics, the only sort a hard scientist could trust, and Caltech, with impeccable hard science credentials. But I was soon thoroughly convinced: social scientists know tons.

Why then do so many people think otherwise? Many say it is because social scientists are stupid, or the social world is too complex or uncontrollable. Better answers are that social expertize conflicts with our overconfidence about familiar experience, or with our democratic ideology that everyone's political opinions should get equal weight. But the best answer, I think is that most public talk by social experts reflects little social science. That is, what social experts say in legal or congressional testimony, or in newspapers or magazines, mostly reflects what they and we want and expect to hear, instead of what expert evidence reveals.

08-17-2008, 09:29 PM	#47 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Ben Bernanke I sold my soul for $1.05 actually.

08-17-2008, 09:43 PM	#49 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Ben Bernanke Sure there is, you just don't get the joke.

08-17-2008, 09:50 PM	#50 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,862	Re: Ben Bernanke So what is the joke? Or would telling me the joke bring me into the devils embrace? __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

08-17-2008, 10:00 PM	#51 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Ben Bernanke "Freedom costs $1.05" is the joke. If I'm going to go to hell for selling my soul, then I'll take freedom in exchange. If I wanted the State to wrap me up in a warm fuzzy blanket in exchange for its promise to take on the burden of all life's struggles, I'd go to that hell, I guess, and worship that devil: I think folks are calling it Obama these days. So I'll study up on how this economics stuff works and take my chances. I just want to be left alone.

08-18-2008, 12:24 AM	#53 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Ben Bernanke No misery. No woes. Life is good. And when I say "left alone" I don't mean live in a cave, I just don't want the government up in my grill. Left alone as in enjoying the blessings of liberty.

08-18-2008, 02:20 AM	#54 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Ben Bernanke Ya know what else doesn't make sense? Quantum physics. Bunch of made up nonsense. __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

08-18-2008, 12:36 PM	#56 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Ben Bernanke Not falsifiable? Tell me, Gringo - is String Theory falsifiable? __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links