Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (1104)	12/5/1998 11:20:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Respond to of 3536

Krugman attacks back at his many critics. Meow. slate.com

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (1104)	12/7/1998 12:51:00 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Mr. Kam, <<Here is where the debate becomes baroque. Taken to the extreme, your argument can be construed as saying that you can argue without facts, that higher truths derive from compelling rhetoric rather than a careful review of data. I know you're not saying that, but I think we should always have a profound respect for data, however imperfect.>> It does indeed become bizarrely baroque, Mr. Kam, when you ignore my posting's dominant thematic content and decide to "construe" by specious extension accusing me of arguing without facts, then proceed to attack my affiliation with truth as mere "compelling rhetoric", then reverse your course and confess that's something that I didn't even say and then tail off with an implication that I do not take facts seriously! Nice try! Your commentary, which does not even rise to the level of a response, fits into the "politics and mendacity" category of this most important paragraph in my posting; My primary concern does not center on the numbers so much as the tools used to attempt to understand and control events the numbers refer to; including, but not limited to; hypotheses and theory; data acquisition and manipulation; mathematics and modeling; politics and mendacity. I tend to fit economics, economists and economic theory into the same category of scientific endeavor and investigation as meteorology. In weather forecasting there is continuous clamor for more data for better forecasting. More and more data has resulted in better short term predictions but is as dismal a failure as Krugman's "dismal science" when dealing with the long term. Therefore for me the Nightly Business Report means about as much as the nightly weather report. The significant difference, of course, is that the mathematics and modeling used in weather forecasting has mostly abandoned linear extrapolations, still widely used in economics in favor of the much tougher but closer-fit-to-reality math of nonlinear dynamics and modeling. Economics, unlike meteorology, has no dominant paradigm or underlying theory sufficiently robust which can use these more sophisticated tools in anything but relatively insignificant local events. We know, as an example, what a bubble of atmospheric high pressure means, and may mean to us personally, much better than we know what an "economic bubble" may mean. But the most intractable problem facing those wishing to defend economics as a serious science is a limited ability to conduct the true enterprise of science; repeatable and falsifiable experimentation. For economics the world economy is its laboratory and any experimentation is carried on post facto in a computer model just like weather experimentation always performed after the fact. Therefore economists and meteorologists rely on the best substitute for real scientific experimentation that they have: mathematics and modeling, where they can perform pretend experiments to make guesses they call predictions. In my way of thinking economics isn't so much a science as it is a kind of religion; a tried and true codex for handling the circulation problems of goods and money. If you've created a fancy new math path or money model, maybe even win a Nobel prize or two, you should keep a few important details out of your publications -- the way ship pilots of old kept their log books away from the ship's captain -- and start yourself a hedge fund and leverage, leverage, leverage! Bottom line: the perception of value is the sunlight that drives the engine of economy just as the sun drives our weather. Distortions or omissions anywhere on the causality line leading from data acquisition and manipulation to ultimate value determination will negatively impact desired outcomes. Comprehensible meaning is the true derivative of the facts of data and the creation of appreciating value is the true derivative of meaning. It's not enough to <<have a profound respect for data,>> Mr. Kam, just as it's not enough to worship the golden calf <<however imperfect>> it has been cast, or forecast. Jerard P