NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 3 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Kevin 14 June 2010 06:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (606)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 17 June 2010 05:45:17PM *  2 points [-]

James_K:

"Real" is a term of art in economics. It's used to reflect inflation-adjusted figures because all nominal GDP tells you is how much money is floating around, which isn't all that useful. real GDP may be less certain, but it's more useful.

You're talking about the "real" figures being "less certain," as if there were some objective fact of the matter that these numbers are trying to approximate. But in reality, there is no such thing, since there exists no objective property of the real world that would make one way to calculate the necessary price index correct, and others incorrect.

The most you can say is that some price indexes would be clearly absurd (e.g. one based solely on the price of paperclips), while others look fairly reasonable (primarily those based on a large, plausible-looking basket of goods). However, even if we limit ourselves to those that look reasonable, there is still an infinite number of different procedures that can be used to calculate a price index, all of which will yield different results, and there is no objective way whatsoever to determine which one is "more correct" than others. If all the reasonable-looking procedures led to the same results, that would indeed make these results meaningful, but this is not the case in reality.

Or to put it differently, an "objective" price index is a logical impossibility, for at least two reasons. First, there is no objective way to determine the relevant basket of goods, and different choices yield wildly different numbers. Second, the set of goods and services available in different times and places is always different, and perfect equivalents are normally not available, so different baskets must be used. Therefore, comparisons of "real" variables invariably involve arbitrary and unwarranted assumptions about the relative values of different things to different people. Again, of course, different arbitrary choices of methodology yield different numbers here.

(By the way, I find it funny how neoclassical economists, who hold it as a fundamental axiom that value is subjective, unquestioningly use price indexes without stopping to think that the basic assumption behind the very notion of a price index is that value is objective and measurable after all.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 June 2010 01:17:36PM 4 points [-]

Here's a crude metric I use for gauging the relative goodness of societies as places to live: Immigration vs. emigration.

It's obviously fuzzy-- you can't get exact numbers on illegal migration, and the barriers (physical, legal, and cultural) to relocation matter, but have to be estimated. So does the possibility that one country may be better than another, but a third may be enough better than either of them to get the immigrants.

For example, the evidence suggests that the EU and the US are about equally good places to live.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 June 2010 07:16:19PM *  3 points [-]

I don't think that's a good metric. Societies that aren't open to mass immigration can have negligible numbers of immigrants regardless of the quality of life their members enjoy. Japan is the prime example.

Moreover, in the very worst places, emigration can be negligible because people can be too poor to pay for the ticket to move anywhere, or prohibited to leave.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 June 2010 11:58:23AM 1 point [-]

But "given perfect knowledge of all market prices and individual preferences at every time and place, as well as unlimited computing power", you could predict how people would choose if they were not faced with legal and moving-cost barriers - e.g. imagine a philanthropist willing to pay the moving costs. So your objection to this metric seems to be a surmountable one, in principle, assuming perfect knowledge etc. The main remaining barrier to migration may be sentimental attachment - but given perfect knowledge etc. one could predict how the choices would change without that remaining barrier.

Applying this metric to Europa versus Earth, presumably Europans would choose to stay on Europa and humans would choose to stay on Earth even with legal, moving-cost, and sentimental barriers removed, indeed both would pay a great deal to avoid being moved.

In contrast to Europans versus humans, humans-of-one-epoch are not very different from humans-of-another-epoch.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 05 October 2010 01:58:18AM 0 points [-]

Excellent point -- although I would pay a good deal to move to Europa, given a few days worth of air and heat.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 June 2010 07:24:16PM 1 point [-]

A fair point, though I think societies like that are pretty rare. Any other notable examples?

Comment author: Vladimir_M 18 June 2010 07:42:35PM *  2 points [-]

Off the top of my head, I know that Finland had negligible levels of immigration until a few years ago. Several Eastern European post-Communist countries are pretty decent places to live these days (I have in mind primarily the Czech Republic), but still have no mass immigration. As far as I know, the same holds for South Korea.

Regarding emigration, the prime example were the communist countries, which strictly prohibited emigration for the most part (though, rather than looking at the numbers of emigrants, we could look at the efforts and risks many people were ready to undertake to escape, which often included dodging snipers and crawling through minefields).