Comment by belter

Comment by belter 9 hours ago

20 replies

Predictable...but are those aholes wrong...? :-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44013692

Economics violates Popper demarcation criterion. Economic theories can't be falsified because you can't run controlled experiments on economies, rewind history, or isolate variables.

When models fail, economists adjust assumptions ...

Unfalsifiable = Unscientific.

rtsil 8 hours ago

Neither are litterature and peace.

yard2010 34 minutes ago

These are all people using made up words to throw shit on other people.

IAmBroom 8 hours ago

> When models fail, economists adjust assumptions ...

When models fail, physicist adjust hypotheses ...

  • belter 7 hours ago

    Physics can test those hypotheses under controlled conditions...

    • RandomLensman 7 hours ago

      Not always/limited in some areas (astrophysics come to mind where we, e.g., cannot (yet) create a star under controlled conditions). Testing hypotheses or predictions vs observations is also a valid method.

      • belter 4 hours ago

        Science is not about where you test hypotheses, but how. Astrophysics builds falsifiable models and checks them against reality like spectra, gravitational waves, etc... When predictions fail, theories change.

        If these were economists, they would check if their equations match the economic universe they live in. :-) Instead, they conclude the agents just “did not behave rationally enough”.

    • JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago

      > Physics can test those hypotheses under controlled conditions

      I genuinely have no idea why so many commenters on HN will spout nonsense based on high school curriculum with the confidence of a PhD when it comes to economics, but won’t embarrass themselves in other fields.

      Yes, economics—particularly microeconomics—is constantly subject to experimentation. Macroeconomics is closer to astronomy, in that models are developed, novel data sources sought, old models tested and then validated or rejected. Also like astronomy, or perhaps more accurately fundamental physics, it’s currently off in a loop of DSGE optimizations which are mathematically pretty for the field but not super interesting outside it. (This work is not in that category.)

      • belter 30 minutes ago

        That comparison collapses instantly. Physics has invariants...Economics does not. You can’t rerun the economy under controlled conditions, so “experiments” are mostly natural or quasi experiments...statistical patchwork with fragile assumptions.

        Macroeconomics isn’t like astronomy :-) Stars don’t change behavior when you model them. Economies do. There are no stable primitives, no conservation laws, just shifting behavior and feedback loops.

        DSGE models are equilibrium sandcastles calibrated to past data. In physics that’s failure while in macro it’s tenure.

        Economics is interesting and sometimes useful but calling it an experimental science is self-flattery.

          “One thing we are not going to have, now or ever, is a set  of models that forecasts sudden falls in the value of financial assets.”
        
           -- Robert E. Lucas
        
         "As a policy-maker during the crisis, I found the available models of limited help. In fact, I would go further: in the face of the crisis, we felt abandoned by conventional tools."
        
           -- Jean-Claude Trichet - https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2010/html/sp101118.en.html
        
         "How Conventional Wisdom Failed Us" - https://youtu.be/c8LMWCko4d0?t=138
        • [removed] 19 minutes ago
          [deleted]
lanfeust6 7 hours ago

Argentina managed to save itself from hyperinflation by drastically cutting spending. By your logic, this could not be in the least bit predictable and inflation as a phenomenon doesn't even matter.

Supposing it did was fairly predictable that not setting money on fire would help recovery, what does it matter that there is no controlled scientific experiment involved? Or to put it another way, are there no facts to be gleaned from data?

  • thrance 6 hours ago

    Argentina didn't manage shit, else they wouldn't have to be bailed out by the Trump admin. This should come as a surprise to no one, "General AnCap" may have artifically and temporarily given the impression of good numbers by destroying his country's public infrastructure, but this is at the direct cost of the future. Now they're starting to pay the price.

    • lanfeust6 6 hours ago

      > Argentina didn't manage shit

      You're deflecting. Curtailing inflation was an outcome of policy. The U.S. had fuck-all to do with it. Unless you're willing to acknowledge something so basic there's nothing else to say to someone disinterested in good faith discussion

      • genericresponse 3 hours ago

        Ehh... you're both wrong. Argentina ended 2024 with an annual inflation rate close to 100%. That's significantly lower, but still hyperinflation. It should be lower this year, but how much is the question.

        Whether that's maintainable long term is probably the decisive judgement. Argentina has had many cycles of hyperinflation, reset, hyperinflation again. The current bailout is not exactly a positive indicator.

atwrk 8 hours ago

Do you think Poppers demarcation criterion is falsifiable?

  • belter 4 hours ago

    It is not falsifiable because it is not a hypothesis but a framework for recognizing science.

    Rejecting Popper for that is like rejecting reasoning itself because you can’t run a control experiment on it...but then one turns into an economist...