Please, someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstream economists that came to be as predicted. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15048834
Someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstream economists that came true as predicted. I mean one about numbers. Like the GDP will grow at a rate of 3% for 3 years. Not "the GDP will grow."

Mainstream economists pride themselves on their use of mathematics.
Mainstream economists claim economics is a science.
Sciences are able to made pretty exact prediction about what will happen if "this is done". Airplanes are designed on computers and the actually fly the 1st time it is tried to get them of the ground. And the fly about as expected.
If mainstream economics is a science and Mainstream economists can use mathematics like a science, then it ought to have a track record od successful predictions.

So, someone tell me about even one such case.
I claim Mainstream economists are full of BS. That everything they say is BS. That no prediction they have made has ever come to pass about as they predicted.
Prove me wrong.
#15048866
I don't really have anything at the moment to fit your criteria.

Just a couple of things come to mind.

The first is basically a political prediction, but I heard predictions before Trump's election that a Trump win would lead to a big jolt to the stock market (due to the forthcoming tax cuts). I'm no Trump supporter, but that was out there. The immediate boost in the stock market to me was indicative of the actual improbability of the eventual election result (because a big movement like what occurred is the result of endogenous shock). I don't own any stock and not a big fan of the tax cuts generally, although this is something that happened.

The other thing that comes to mind was not from mainstream economics, but rather Marxist economics, but was a big one. Paul Sweezy and Paul Barron in their book 'Monopoly Capital', published in 1966, foresaw the stagnation of the 1970s (and beyond), and described the particulars with very good foresight indeed, to an extent that is rather remarkable.
#15048873
Well, who is the conventional neoliberal economist @Steve_American ?

Milton Friedman? And the Chicago School talking about his theories and so on? That all it led to at least in Latin American economies? Total disaster.

No, conventional economists from the neoliberal school are the worst.
#15048881
Tainari88 wrote:Well, who is the conventional neoliberal economist @Steve_American ?

Milton Friedman? And the Chicago School talking about his theories and so on? That all it led to at least in Latin American economies? Total disaster.

No, conventional economists from the neoliberal school are the worst.

I'm glad you posted this, as it echos my thoughts as well. Notice my reference to Sweezy and Barron.

If you are a thinker about economics, you will probably utilize the sources you think are pertinent, so Steve's consistent tactic of categorizing all who think about economics into a box, which he calls 'mainstream economics', is not very helpful.

So it would help if he would clarify just what he means.

I'd have to call Paul Krugman a mainstream economist. He's probably the most read of any current economist.

I'm not a big Krugman fan, but maybe some Krugman fans could chime in here. (I think he identifies as and/or is considered a Keynsian, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

Paul Stiglitz is probably among the top 5 most read current economists. He's a former World Bank head, who had a midlife crisis, or something. Again, I'm not a huge fan (I always read the radicals), but I wouldn't be shocked if he made some good predictions. He wrote a lot on the Iraq War (I read his book 'The 3 Trillion Dollar War' (he later revised the figure up to at least 5 trillion--at the time of revision which was a good number of years ago)). He probably made some good predictions with relation to the Iraq War, and perhaps with other things.

Going back a while, Joseph Schumpeter did some good work on business cycles. He believed in it too much, almost to the extent of arguing 'history literally repeats itself and there is no divergence in particular case-trends' (not a real quote, an unsympathetic paraphrase), but his work was really quite relevant and innovative with respect to boom and bust tendencies in economics.
Last edited by Crantag on 16 Nov 2019 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15048884
Steve_American wrote:Someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstream economists that came true as predicted. I mean one about numbers. Like the GDP will grow at a rate of 3% for 3 years. Not "the GDP will grow."


GDP is already difficult to measure. In particular real GDP. It is subject to significant revisions in the future. Forecasting is a whole different bargain. It's usually done with statistical models. Basically, you have data on the economy, and you're trying to find a statistical relationship between data now and GDP in the future. Expert judgement can enter the model, through parameter restrictions, but I would say there's a trend towards purely data-driven models. You end up with a forecast with large uncertainty. You can estimate that uncertainty. You won't read about it in the media though.
#15048888
Crantag wrote:I'm glad you posted this, as it echos my thoughts as well. Notice my reference to Sweezy and Barron.

If you are a thinker about economics, you will probably utilize the sources you think are pertinent, so Steve's consistent tactic of categorizing all who think about economics into a box, which he calls 'mainstream economics', is not very helpful.

So it would help if he would clarify just what he means.

I'd have to call Paul Krugman a mainstream economist. He's probably the most read of any current economist.

I'm not a big Krugman fan, but maybe some Krugman fans could chime in here. (I think he identifies as and/or is considered a Keynsian, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

Paul Stiglitz is probably among the top 5 most read current economists. He's a former World Bank head, who had a midlife crisis, or something. Again, I'm not a huge fan (I always read the radicals), but I wouldn't be shocked if he made some good predictions. He wrote a lot on the Iraq War (I read his book 'The 3 Trillion Dollar War' (he later revised the figure up to at least 5 trillion--at the time of revision which was a good number of years ago)). He probably made some good predictions with relation to the Iraq War, and perhaps with other things.

Going back a while, Joseph Schumpeter did some good work on business cycles. He believed in it too much, almost to the extent of arguing 'history literally repeats itself and there is no divergence in particular case-trends' (not a real quote, an unsympathetic paraphrase), but his work was really quite relevant with innovative to boom and bust tendencies in economics.


I go for the radicals too.

My favorite economist is Richard Wolff. I love clarity. That is my absolute favorite.

Though, I liked reading many of the theorists about cooperative models.
#15048893
Crantag wrote:I'm glad you posted this, as it echos my thoughts as well. Notice my reference to Sweezy and Barron.

If you are a thinker about economics, you will probably utilize the sources you think are pertinent, so Steve's consistent tactic of categorizing all who think about economics into a box, which he calls 'mainstream economics', is not very helpful.

So it would help if he would clarify just what he means.

I'd have to call Paul Krugman a mainstream economist. He's probably the most read of any current economist.

I'm not a big Krugman fan, but maybe some Krugman fans could chime in here. (I think he identifies as and/or is considered a Keynsian, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

Paul Stiglitz is probably among the top 5 most read current economists. He's a former World Bank head, who had a midlife crisis, or something. Again, I'm not a huge fan (I always read the radicals), but I wouldn't be shocked if he made some good predictions. He wrote a lot on the Iraq War (I read his book 'The 3 Trillion Dollar War' (he later revised the figure up to at least 5 trillion--at the time of revision which was a good number of years ago)). He probably made some good predictions with relation to the Iraq War, and perhaps with other things.

Going back a while, Joseph Schumpeter did some good work on business cycles. He believed in it too much, almost to the extent of arguing 'history literally repeats itself and there is no divergence in particular case-trends' (not a real quote, an unsympathetic paraphrase), but his work was really quite relevant and innovative with respect to boom and bust tendencies in economics.



@Crantag , I dug up some old 1951 Milton Friedman economic theory and how his vision of deregulation over private enterprise turned out to be a study in horrible results. Obviously capitalism never really is conforming to just small competitive shares in a market. It wants more and more. It doesn't feel accepting of competition.


Here is his piece where he starts his analysis of why deregulating and having the state not oversee private enterprises guarantees individual 'freedom'. All it did was create a lot of white collar crime and hedge fund managers and bailouts and shit of the worst sort.

https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/fried ... 7_1951.pdf

Notice how Friedman glosses over the socialists pushing for democracy and so on? How they need to be pushed out and so on? Because the individual has to be emphasized. Please.....

Milton Freidman and his little friends said this long ago....and what did it result in? Unfettered theivery by the Wall Street Crowd even creating ways of making money off of failed economies and bank foreclosures etc. It became an excuse to pillage and the state to have no power over the pillaging. What a grand damn horrific economic plan that turned out to be....

Whenever these neoliberal free market invisible hands of shit capitalists start talking about liberty and freedom they should change their vocabulary to chaos and bankruptcies for the working and middle classes:

Equally important, the
growing power of the State has brought widespread recognition of the extent to which
centralized economic control is likely to endanger individual freedom and liberty.

Yeah, just let those capitalists run the show without opposition and you wind up bailing them out to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars to save GM, to save, Goldman Sachs, to save, their thievery....please.
#15048915
Tainari88 wrote:[usermention=39933]I dug up some old 1951 Milton Friedman economic theory and how his vision of deregulation over private enterprise turned out to be a study in horrible results.


You must be a barrel of laughs at parties...
#15048943
@Crantag,
You wrote, "If you are a thinker about economics, you will probably utilize the sources you think are pertinent, so Steve's consistent tactic of categorizing all who think about economics into a box, which he calls 'mainstream economics', is not very helpful.

So it would help if he would clarify just what he means."

My reply.
Obviously, you don't read much of the MMTer's stuff. I'm following their usage.

I think they divide economists into 2 groups --- those who buy the claim that Gov. is the same as a household {= Mainstream} and those who don't. Or, those who buy the idea that gold standard thinking is still relevant are "mainstream". Any economist who thought the austerity in Europe would bring their economies back quicker than a Keynesian stimulus would is Mainstream. So, Mainstream is basically every graduate with an economics degree from any univ. except [email protected], and maybe a couple of others, like maybe Stony Brook.

So, all Neo-liberal and all Neo-Keynesian economists are Mainstream.

Another example, Dr. Richard Wolff is Mainstream even though he is a Marxist. OTOH, he does say a lot of good things too. And, sometime I get the idea that he really doesn't believe what he is saying, but that he thinks he must say it that way or the public will not grasp what his point is. That is, he thinks that he has to conform to what the public believes on point "B" {= taxes are necessary to fund the gov.} to get them to understand his point "A" {= whatever he is saying}.

All MMTers are not Mainstream, also Dr. Hyman Minsky, Dr. Michael Hudson, Dr. Steve Keen, and maybe recently DR. Mark Blyth. So, there only 20 or so non-Mainstream economists in the media of the world today. There may be some more in the "closet" so to speak.

Does this answer you question?

__________________ ______________ ___________________________
On another note, I see no one has provided one example yet. Mostly people who agree with me that most modern economists talk big but deliver disaster. Even Big Steve didn't try to provide one example.
#15048947
Steve_American wrote:@Crantag,
You wrote, "If you are a thinker about economics, you will probably utilize the sources you think are pertinent, so Steve's consistent tactic of categorizing all who think about economics into a box, which he calls 'mainstream economics', is not very helpful.

So it would help if he would clarify just what he means."

My reply.
Obviously, you don't read much of the MMTer's stuff. I'm following their usage.

I think they divide economists into 2 groups --- those who buy the claim that Gov. is the same as a household {= Mainstream} and those who don't. Or, those who buy the idea that gold standard thinking is still relevant are "mainstream". Any economist who thought the austerity in Europe would bring their economies back quicker than a Keynesian stimulus would is Mainstream. So, Mainstream is basically every graduate with an economics degree from any univ. except [email protected], and maybe a couple of others, like maybe Stony Brook.

So, all Neo-liberal and all Neo-Keynesian economists are Mainstream.

Another example, Dr. Richard Wolff is Mainstream even though he is a Marxist. OTOH, he does say a lot of good things too. And, sometime I get the idea that he really doesn't believe what he is saying, but that he thinks he must say it that way or the public will not grasp what his point is. That is, he thinks that he has to conform to what the public believes on point "B" {= taxes are necessary to fund the gov.} to get them to understand his point "A" {= whatever he is saying}.

All MMTers are not Mainstream, also Dr. Hyman Minsky, Dr. Michael Hudson, Dr. Steve Keen, and maybe recently DR. Mark Blyth. So, there only 20 or so non-Mainstream economists in the media of the world today. There may be some more in the "closet" so to speak.

Does this answer you question?

__________________ ______________ ___________________________
On another note, I see no one has provided one example yet. Mostly people who agree with me that most modern economists talk big but deliver disaster. Even Big Steve didn't try to provide one example.

Utter and absolute nonsense. But it's not as though we didn't already know. I was merely affording the benefit of the doubt.
#15048952
Crantag wrote:This is a thread about economics...

What's you're deal? The post was interesting and very relevant.


Ignore, and move on. The man has completely worthless opinions on most subjects.

Anyway @Crantag I wanted to know your opinion on neo-liberalism and how you think it has functioned these past 40 or so years?

I love the idea of Mondragon style cooperatives. I think they are the wave of the future. Have you heard of that example? For economic models for worker owned industries and enterprises?

Democracy at work...that is a good thing.

A bit of Keynes and a bit of Krugman:


https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... 0zTp0BBeRM


https://www.inquisitr.com/5745842/andre ... an-debate/


I also wanted to include Robert Owen too:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Owen

Your opinion @Crantag ?

A quick video on the history of Economic theory.

Get down to the center of the problem: Here it is!! The dude is telling the truth

#15048954
Steve_American wrote:Someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstream economists that came true as predicted. I mean one about numbers. Like the GDP will grow at a rate of 3% for 3 years. Not "the GDP will grow."

Mainstream economists pride themselves on their use of mathematics.
Mainstream economists claim economics is a science.
Sciences are able to made pretty exact prediction about what will happen if "this is done". Airplanes are designed on computers and the actually fly the 1st time it is tried to get them of the ground. And the fly about as expected.
If mainstream economics is a science and Mainstream economists can use mathematics like a science, then it ought to have a track record od successful predictions.

So, someone tell me about even one such case.
I claim Mainstream economists are full of BS. That everything they say is BS. That no prediction they have made has ever come to pass about as they predicted.
Prove me wrong.


I would say Economics is and isn't science. There can be testable hypothesis devised for economics, but often it's just impractical or unethical to test these hypothesis. Thus, people just kind of look at data, and try to make some sort of sense from it.

Anyway, don't people tend to call it a social science?
#15048968
Rancid wrote:
I would say Economics is and isn't science. There can be testable hypothesis devised for economics, but often it's just impractical or unethical to test these hypothesis. Thus, people just kind of look at data, and try to make some sort of sense from it.

Anyway, don't people tend to call it a social science?

Yes, it's a Social Science. But, economists say things like TINA, aka there is no alternative. That sounds very definite.
Would other social scientists say something that definite about something that would damage the incomes of millions of people?
I think not. So, I deduce that economists do in fact think of their discipline as an actual science. That they have proved things to be true**.

And yet, of all the specific predictions mainstream economists have made over the last 30-40 years not one of them has been accurate. Not one.!.!.!

Mainstream economists are masters of hand waving away all real world data that shows their prediction to have been wrong, totally wrong; as in "it" went down and not up as they had predicted.

.** . Their proofs take this form. They make some assumptions are all true. At least one of them is always false. They go on, aka ignoring that. In the end they make a statement that due to the complexity of the problem those assumptions are the best they can do, AND they are close enough to give a good picture of reality. However, they NEVER look to see if the actual data supports that it was "good enough". So, when the data proves that it is NOT at all good enough, they are {as I just said} ignoring that data and therefore, see no need to revisit the proof and improve it, so that it does match the real data. {Please excuse the long, run on sentence.} I assert that they have proved NOTHING.
#15049074
Tainari88 wrote:Ignore, and move on. The man has completely worthless opinions on most subjects.


I apologize for bruising your delicate sensibilities.

The comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

Get over it...
#15049086
Steve_American wrote:


I think they divide economists into 2 groups --- those who buy the claim that Gov. is the same as a household {= Mainstream} and those who don't. Or, those who buy the idea that gold standard thinking is still relevant are "mainstream". Any economist who thought the austerity in Europe would bring their economies back quicker than a Keynesian stimulus would is Mainstream. So, Mainstream is basically every graduate with an economics degree from any univ. except [email protected], and maybe a couple of others, like maybe Stony Brook.



The economists, and there aren't many, that compare the government to a household budget, are old school. There are different flavors, nearly all of them are basically obsolete.

Macroeconomics is mainstream. Or if you don't mind a little jargon, the current paradigm. There are big differences here as well, they all have a leg up on microeconomists trying to work in a macroeconomic environment.

About them, let's dispose of the gold lovers first. In a recent survey of economists, not a single one thought the gold standard was a good idea.

Then there is the Austrian School. Which isn't technically a school because it's actually fake political science pretending to be economics. It's really old paranoia about Communism in a prom dress.

Then there are the conservative economists like Friedman. 20 years ago, they were quite influential. But science chews nearly everything up eventually, and they got tossed in the chipper shredder, and for good reason.

My fave is Stiglitz ( I know, quelle surprise!) I keep talking about his books, but his lectures are better. There are a bunch available on Youtube, look for the ones where he's talking to other academics. Like the guy said in the movie, "They will light you up for a while", but stick with it and it will start making sense.

The OP question is flawed. Economics is like climatology more than weather forecasting. Brad DeLong was once asked why economists didn't prevent the big crash a decade ago. His response was when did politicians ever do what economists wanted.

Which brings me to the final bit. Economics can help a lot. But basically you will need a Progressive era, preferably with someone like Liz Warren as president, to get what needs to be done, done.

Americans have been taught to be afraid. They need to start being American again, and I mean that in the best sense of the word.
#15049089
Tainari88 wrote:Ignore, and move on. The man has completely worthless opinions on most subjects.

Anyway @Crantag I wanted to know your opinion on neo-liberalism and how you think it has functioned these past 40 or so years?

I love the idea of Mondragon style cooperatives. I think they are the wave of the future. Have you heard of that example? For economic models for worker owned industries and enterprises?

Democracy at work...that is a good thing.

A bit of Keynes and a bit of Krugman:


https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... 0zTp0BBeRM


https://www.inquisitr.com/5745842/andre ... an-debate/


I also wanted to include Robert Owen too:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Owen

Your opinion @Crantag ?

A quick video on the history of Economic theory.

Get down to the center of the problem: Here it is!! The dude is telling the truth


I think neoliberalism is a bunch of bullshit. As an ethos, I think it seeks one-size-fits-all solutions, which are tailor made for policy implementation, but which neglect complexity. This is appealing to politicians.

Privatization is a big one.

You raised a huge question, and I can't give a complete answer, just a couple thoughts, the above of which is one.

I think neoliberalism's failures are self-evident and incredibly numerous.

But another of neoliberalism's conveniences is that it benefits the monied classes. This gives it political clout.
#15049132
BigSteve wrote:I apologize for bruising your delicate sensibilities.

The comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

Get over it...


The only one with delicate sensibilities is you. You are not going to last in this forum by whining to others when you lose arguments and turn to insults and personalisms.

You think your way of dealing with debating hasn't been noticed?

I am not fooled at all about you not knowing any of these economic theories. You don't know a lot of things.

Instead of learning things with an honest attitude and admitting you have not picked up any books about any of this?

You instead cover up with these kinds of comments.

I thought you told the authorities I am obsessed with you and I am mentally ill?

Why quote me then at all? Avoid me completely?

You can't? Is that another one of your 'fictions'?

Are you going to comment about economic theory or are you going to derail the subject with feelings you have....? Again?

A good tune for your way of dealing with intellectual subjects:



No one cares about your feelings in an economics thread.

You either know this subject or you don't and ask for help.

But honesty is not for you.

:roll:
#15049136
Tainari88 wrote:The only one with delicate sensibilities is you. You are not going to last in this forum by whining to others when you lose arguments and turn to insults and personalisms.

You think your way of dealing with debating hasn't been noticed?

I am not fooled at all about you not knowing any of these economic theories. You don't know a lot of things.

Instead of learning things with an honest attitude and admitting you have not picked up any books about any of this?

You instead cover up with these kinds of comments.

I thought you told the authorities I am obsessed with you and I am mentally ill?

Why quote me then at all? Avoid me completely?

You can't? Is that another one of your 'fictions'?

Are you going to comment about economic theory or are you going to derail the subject with feelings you have....? Again?

A good tune for your way of dealing with intellectual subjects:



No one cares about your feelings in an economics thread.

You either know this subject or you don't and ask for help.

But honesty is not for you.

:roll:


This is nothing but an unbridled personal attack on me, based solely on an innocent, tongue-in-cheek comment.

If little comments like that upset you, maybe the internet's not the place for you. Watching you get all worked up over this is actually pretty funny.

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

And, while I've not told the "authorities" anything, your obsession is clear...
The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/ScouseGirlMedia/status/1204043[…]

How to become an EU citizen

Don't worry, I know you're incapable of admitting[…]

The Irishman...

True story. I won an acting award i high school. […]

:roll: I know. That's interesting, did you […]