Re: Libertarian cartoons

On Sep 10, 11:50 pm, ZnU <z...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If your model allows for preferences that change from moment to moment
in arbitrary and unpredictable ways, it has no predictive power at all.

Funny, economists manage to make predictions regardless...

Once again, call me when you guys have some sort of widely accepted and
reasonably accurate mechanism for answering questions as basic as "Does
a bubble currently exist?"


Sure, somewhere, all the time...





I'm curious, what predictive power to you imagine your 'model' has
that economics lacks?

That straw man again?


Or an attempt to get you to examine your thesis...




Secondly I will virtuously refrain from pointing out that while you
claim the existence of such preferences, you do not actual show
them...

Ariely's asymmetric dominance experiments show them.

Or, not.  I mean, damn...

Nice argument.



Where was yours? "Some guy said" wasn't one.




Let's say incontrovertible physical observations demonstrating the
inaccuracy of Newtonian physics had been made prior to the development
of relativity.

I'm the guy saying "Well, your theory predicts some things accurately,
but it clearly isn't getting at what's fundamentally going on because
there are these other things it gets wrong".

You're the guy sitting there denying the existence of the relevant
observations and claiming anyone who points them out "doesn't have a
model" and should therefore be ignored.

So, in additiona to you vast fund of other ignrance, you are now
adding that you don't know the relationship between models and
observations...

Models are not observations, dumbkopf.

Is this really the approach you're going to take? Ignore my argument
except to pull a couple of words out of it and patronizingly chide me as
if I don't know what they mean, in a way that has no connection to how I
used them?



The problem is that you don't understand the words you use. Which is
pretty damn fundamental. You misinterpret them., and then launch
ludicrous attacks based on not what they mean to economist, but what
they mean to you.

Observations are not models. They are no part of models whatsoever.
A model is essentially a set of predictions ABOUT observations. If a
model is accurate the predictions will play out. If it isn't they
won't. Typically a model works sometimes and doesn't work other
times.



(Except, of course, that Newton could make much better predictions than
economists have ever managed.)

Newton operated with simpler systems.

Notably, not systems including the complexity of actual human behavior.



Like I said, simpler systems.



I see. Government can't be better at anything because if it were
worth
doing, the market would have already done it.

Right.

You are a right-wing kook.

Yes, MUCH easier to throw insults than to defend your position...

It was an observation. Your stated position puts you rather
unambiguously quite far outside of mainstream opinion, including among
economists.

I like the way you now claim to know what the mainstream opinion of
economists is....

Government doesn't increase the option set.  Government has no magic
space powers allowing it to perceive things others can't.  Therefore
anything that government 'knows' everyone else will also know.  No
room exists therin for government to take advantage of high return
opportuntes denied private industry.

We're done here. You're fucking nuts.


So your position is that government DOES have magic space powers???

Or are you just 'declaring victory and running away'?
.

Loading