Open Thread June 2010, Part 3

Kevin

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

The thrilling conclusion of what is likely to be an inaccurately named trilogy of June Open Threads.

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

The thrilling conclusion of what is likely to be an inaccurately named trilogy of June Open Threads.

Just so we're on the same page, could you explain what it would look like if economists' collective wisdom were actually so bad that you would agree they use GDP data in an unreasonable way?

Because you can't just look at the fact the top economists all agree -- they'd do that even if the field were collectively garbage. There has to be some real-world entanglement which would reveal the failure of their ideas, and I want to know what you expect such a failure to look like.

Oh boy, we should bring Taleb in here.

2Mike Bishop16y

I'm a sociologist*, and there is nothing sociologists like to do more than point out where economists go wrong. So if GDP was a worthless figure, I expect the real world entanglement that one of my fellow sociologists would have convinced me of that already. I'm not saying economists never overinterpret GDP figures, and I'm not saying the consensus of macroeconomists is always correct. Though I think we might both be better served by quitting conversation and reading actual experts (I don't claim to be one) I would like to make sure we're on the same page about the implications of your criticism. Are you not saying that it is essentially worthless to attempt to study economic growth or business cycles empirically because the data is so poor? *if you can be one without having completed your dissertation yet.

9

Open Thread June 2010, Part 3

9

9

9

Open Thread June 2010, Part 3

9

9