From the Guardian: Why economic forecasting has always been a flawed science - excerpt: Forecasting economic parameters requires, imho, more luck that judgement. One can get an economic-subject forecast right, and then each further forecast quite wrong. Whyzzat? It's because economics, which we think is science, is more a social-science than a physical science: *Physical science is based upon repeatable events. The moon orbits the earth in fairly certain orbits, and both the earth and the moon orbit the sun. (So far, so good.) *But social-sciences depend upon the collective behaviour of human-beings within an "economic group", and that is not the least bit predictable with any great certainty especially over time. Btw, the Good Judgement Team has morphed into the Good Judgement Open site, if interested ...
It is true for most modeling, not just economic modeling. The models are designed to account for the past reality, but when you have so many future possibilities, they do not and cannot account for them.
They make for good Doctorates, but little else. I don't know from where the Next Great Thing in economics will come, but I suspect it will be from microeconomics and not macroeconomics ...
It will probably come from a broadening of Austrian beliefs from individual decision making to something more community-oriented. That is my gut instinct because the real bane of economics and economic policy is zeroing in on how to better address economic dead zones. Some hybrid in between micro/individual and a more community-based level basically.
I frankly am more concerned about secondary-education in the US, which I don't think is performing well enough. And this current Secy. of Education thinks that paid private-schooling is the "magic wand". Which it is for people who earn damn fine salaries and can afford them. But those living below the poverty threshold have no way out other than through at least a high-school degree. And far too many are not getting even that. From the NCES: See the numbers - those graduating are certainly looking better than 7/8 years ago. Still, the above says that fully 17% of our kids are not graduating with a simple high-school degree. Maybe I've got it all wrong - but I figure that 17% is the cesspool feeding into first delinquency and then criminal incarceration. The US has one of the higher crime indices compared to other developed countries. (See for yourself here.)
But diplomas don't matter if there are are no jobs. Education undoubtedly needs to be part of the solution but what type of education? How does that look? I mean in my area all this workforce adjustment training really didn't put people back to work in better positions or even comparable jobs. It gave them a place to hide out for a few years.
good point ! commie bureaucrats cant predict the economic future or what jobs will be needed in that future. Best to let business do the training since they know exactly what they need and what is worth paying for to them. Secondary education should be all vouchers given huge failure of public socialist schools. That way parents who love their kids make decision rather than uncaring libcommie unions. With vouchers there is competition every day for a school to perform. If it doesn't parents pull their kids and the failed school/ business dies a much needed death. Imagine if unions controlled businesses the way they control schools??
It is why I saw through Hillary's Kill Coal plan in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how many billions you spend on "training and education". If you live in a town with a grocery store and a few dollar stores (and where often drug trade members outnumber workers), a phd in anything isn't going create you a job there.
how odd, a liberal would rather talk about forecasting inaccuracy, a random and trivial subject for sure, but he has no interest in explaining why libcommieism is superior to conservatism/libertarianism. Obviously if a liberal could make good arguments about the most important subject he would want to do nothing else!.
One can only hope its YOU who dies from pulmonary cancer because you've been breathing to much coal-effluent polluted air. Yes, people like you - ignorant of the factual evidence - deserve it ... PS: While your at it, take Donald Dork with you ...
Speak for yourself. U'mma evolve into giant planet eating laser robot Baff. People attempting to manipulate us would have us believe that economics is a science. So when some one gives a statistic as proof, I go deaf to that person. I already know I am being conned. But this isn't news to anyone. Stating the obvious wins no prizes. Now, is social behaviour predictable? Yes, it is very predictable. Tomorrow, everyone in the world will want to eat some food. What we are all looking for however is something smart. To have seen a relationship no one else has. To get ahead of the trend. Economics is trend spotting. And trends can be exploited. Trends can also be set. I can predict a hit record. But also, I can promote a hit record. Create one again and again and again. Remixes by top club dejays. Video with a sexy girl dancing will predictably get the attention of men. Interviews on the radio will predictably get airplay. And so on. Or I could exploit one, predicting it will be a hit I can buy many for my shop. Book the band for my club etc. I can make a well selling car and I can do it again and again and again. Reliably and predictably. Human behaviour is very predictable.
The real issue is that trying to account for all the resources in society is an incredibly complex thing. A second (and I think smaller) aspect is accounting for human psychology, because people often tend to act in a herd mentality. When prices for something scarce are going up, people start thinking they can get more money by buying that commodity and selling it later. When prices start heading down, people tend to suddenly want to dump that commodity into the market as fast as possible before the price goes down even more. This only accentuates price fluctuations. To phrase it another way, people are near-sighted. Prices in the market may not necessarily align with logic. When you combine the first with the second, often times people do not know how much something is actually worth, or actually going to be worth in a few years. So things like stock market crashes happen.
we do? who thinks economics is a hard science??????? Name one significant person or admit your thread is 100 % absurd
