Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15193801
late wrote:Feel free to can the crap and prove me wrong.

There are a number of terms you could be referring to, so if I give you one, you can always disingenuously claim it is another one. Name the one you claim I don't know, and I will either point you to a post of mine where I used it, proving you wrong, or I won't be able to, proving you right.

Clear?
#15193805
Steve_American wrote:It doesn't matter that some economic theories 'aspire' to be objective natural sciences.

Sure it does. Consider planetary astronomy: until Kepler, there was no useful theory to explain the movements of the planets; but there was a difference between the efforts of those who were trying to find an empirically valid description of planetary motion and those who assumed the planets were moved by the will of the gods.
Until some Econ. theory succeeds in that objective, it follows that no econ. theory *IS* an objective natural science.

No. Before the theory of continental drift, geology could not explain a lot of its findings. That doesn't mean geology was not an empirical science until the theory of continental drift gave it a valid theoretical basis.
To be a true science it must make predictions, do experiments, and see if the predictions are accurate.

Economics does that. The predictions just aren't reliably accurate unless they are no more complex than, "The recent trend will continue."
. . . IF no Econ. theory can do this, it follows the Econ. can at best be like geology and paleontology.

Or medicine, climatology, psychology, or astrophysics. Those are all empirical sciences.
These just look at reality, hopefully new observation of places with exposed geology or new bones found, etc. For, Econ. this would be studying the numbers that describe the economic reality in various nations over times as different policies are implemented by those nation's Govs.

Yes, and economists have to find valid ways of describing such policies in ways that enable reliably accurate prediction of their effects. So far, they can't do that. But that doesn't mean they never will.
. . . I most strongly point the lurkers to the work of Prof. Steve Keen.

I like Keen, and also Michael Hudson, Mason Gaffney, Mariana Mazzucato, Ha-Joon Chang, and a few others.
He has groked that "chaos theory" [which was discovered in the 70s] has the tools that will now allow computer simulations of the supposed economic reality. Chaos theory is a sub-theory of math, that "solves" the non-linear iterated equations that are so common in reality. It is the theory that put forward the famous "butterfly effect". Some examples are weather prediction and population dynamics. Clearly, the economy is a series of iterated transactions of buying, selling, paying wages, paying taxes, investing, and saving, etc.
. . . Prof. Keen lets you download for free his program to see how his supposed economy works. The program shows the chaos that gave the theory its name. That is the economy can move around its strange attractor for years and then for no apparent reason (no outside perturbation) suddenly move to a different strange attractor.

Right. MMNE posits equilibrium "solutions" to systems of simultaneous equations, but economic phenomena are clearly in the domain of differential equations and chaos, which very few economists have the mathematical chops to even think about.
. . . Currently, only MMT has made many predictions that have been proven accurate. A few other isolated economists have made some correct predictions but they are isolated and so are not yet schools of economics with theories.

Not so. Geoists predicted the contrast between China's boom and Russia's bust based on how they handled land, which MMNE got hilariously wrong. Geoists like Fred Foldvary also predicted the GFC.
. . . Please, lurkers show me places where the consensus of either Neo-liberal or Neo-Keynesian economists have made any correct predictions. I have yet to be told of any.

It is true that MMNE is incapable of making reliably accurate predictions more complex than, "The recent trend will continue." But MMNE =/= economics.
ToP said that I need to learn the history of economics, or I'll repeat mistakes.
OK, what old economic theory do you (ToP) claim is a natural science?

Classical economics, while it was wrong about the Labor Theory of Value and lacked an account of marginal effects, was nevertheless more accurate than neoclassical economics in its description of the economic roles of workers, factory owners and landowners.
. . . You do realize that it was rejected by almost all economists. It could not have been that good at proving its theory to be objectively true, if it was abandoned in favor of a different theory. What accurate predictions did it make? Why was it abandoned?

Classical economics was abandoned because it was married to the Labor Theory of Value, which Jevons refuted in 1869, it lacked a theory of externalities, and its account of pricing was clearly inferior to marginal analysis.
#15193845
I wrote: To be a true science it must make predictions, do experiments, and see if the predictions are accurate.

ToP replied: Economics does that. The predictions just aren't reliably accurate unless they are no more complex than, "The recent trend will continue."

No. Economics can't do very many controlled real experiments, it can do just a very few.

I divided natural sciences into 2 groups. Those that can do controlled experiments, and those that can't do them.

Those that can do experiments are able to use the complete scientific method. Those that can't are therefore inferior sciences. Economics can at best aspire to join that 2nd inferior group. ToP seemed to not understand or just rejected my separation.

ToP, you then go on to agree that Econ. can't yet make accurate predictions.

I assert very strongly, that a field of study that can't make accurate predictions is not yet a science. Do many scientists accept the weathermen are now scientists? Weathermen now understand why the can't ever make accurate forecasts out at 5 days and aren't that accurate with even tonight's weather forecasts.

ToP, your idea that Classical Econ. was quite good, yet you assert was flawed and didn't correct the flaws, and yet it was a true natural science is not persuasive. It was replaced in all univ. econ. depts..

I assert that until the math that a school of econ. theories uses is chaos math, Econ. will never be even a 2nd rate science like Astronomy.

BTW people, a *huge* part of the problem with Econ. is that it matters too much. The reason that 'the powers that be' let Astronomy and Paleontology alone to be sciences is that their conclusions *don't* matter to their profits. Econ. does matter a huge amount to their profits, so TPTB interfere with the study of Econ. to bend it so that TPTB make more in profits. As long as this is true, Econ. *can't* ever be a science.
#15193849
I wrote: He still has not told us just what his "land program" is. I have asked him twice, now.

ToP replied: I advocate location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE) analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. Each exclusive land tenure holder would repay the unimproved rental value of their location to the government and community of those excluded that create it, less the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing at that location.

ToP, I'm sorry, but I don't understand you there.
In particular this part, "community of those excluded that create it, ...".

Can you say more about what you mean by "and [the] community of those excluded that create"?
Can you also explain what you were referring to with that "it"?

Also, how is "the unimproved rental value of their location" determined or calculated in a fair or 'scientific' way?
.
#15193853
Steve_American wrote:No. Economics can't do very many controlled real experiments, it can do just a very few.

I divided natural sciences into 2 groups. Those that can do controlled experiments, and those that can't do them.

That is not a relevant distinction. What makes a science empirical is not controlled experiments but observations of objective reality.
Those that can do experiments are able to use the complete scientific method. Those that can't are therefore inferior sciences. Economics can at best aspire to join that 2nd inferior group. ToP seemed to not understand or just rejected my separation.

By that "logic," astronomy, paleontology, climatology, etc. -- indeed, any study of any phenomenon that is in the past or that is large in scale relative to scientific resources -- are not legitimate empirical sciences.
ToP, you then go on to agree that Econ. can't yet make accurate predictions.

Right. Because the richest and most powerful people in the world understand that if a science of economics can make accurate predictions, it will have to understand actual economies, and if it understands actual economies, it will inevitably identify the non-contributory role in those economies of the richest and most powerful people in the world. They certainly don't want that, so they have done what is necessary to prevent the emergence of a genuine empirical science of economics.
I assert very strongly, that a field of study that can't make accurate predictions is not yet a science.

Economics can make accurate predictions. Just not ones more complex than, "The recent trend will continue." That prediction just happens to be right almost all the time.
ToP, your idea that Classical Econ. was quite good, yet you assert was flawed and didn't correct the flaws, and yet it was a true natural science is not persuasive. It was replaced in all univ. econ. depts..

I didn't say it was quite good. I didn't even say it was better than MMNE. It was just more honest.
I assert that until the math that a school of econ. theories uses is chaos math, Econ. will never be even a 2nd rate science like Astronomy.

I'm sure a genuine empirical science of economics will use differential equations, not simultaneous equations, but I'm not sure chaos is the best model.
BTW people, a *huge* part of the problem with Econ. is that it matters too much. The reason that 'the powers that be' let Astronomy and Paleontology alone to be sciences is that their conclusions *don't* matter to their profits. Econ. does matter a huge amount to their profits, so TPTB interfere with the study of Econ. to bend it so that TPTB make more in profits. As long as this is true, Econ. *can't* ever be a science.

Correct. Economics is the only science that powerful people have a powerful motive to falsify.
#15193858
I wrote: I assert very strongly, that a field of study that can't make accurate predictions is not yet a science.

ToP replied: Economics can make accurate predictions. Just not ones more complex than, "The recent trend will continue." That prediction just happens to be right almost all the time.

So what?
Everyone can make the prediction that "The recent trend will continue."
This is like anyone can make the weather prediction that it will be colder in Jan. than in Aug..

Therefore, the only interesting predictions are about when the recent trend will continue stops being true.


Steve_American wrote: No. Economics can't do very many controlled real experiments, it can do just a very few.

ToP replied: I divided natural sciences into 2 groups. Those that can do controlled experiments, and those that can't do them.

And I wrote: That is not a relevant distinction. What makes a science empirical is not controlled experiments but observations of objective reality.
Those that can do experiments are able to use the complete scientific method. Those that can't are therefore inferior sciences. Economics can at best aspire to join that 2nd inferior group. ToP seemed to not understand or just rejected my separation.

And ToP replied: By that "logic," astronomy, paleontology, climatology, etc. -- indeed, any study of any phenomenon that is in the past or that is large in scale relative to scientific resources -- are not legitimate empirical sciences.

Yes, that is my claimed point. That some sciences are, in fact, inferior because they can't do experiments. And so, as a result, find it harder to "prove" to the public that what they think is true, is true. So, the public trusts them less. Also, these inferior sciences find it necessary to change their accepted theories far, far, far more often than the other natural sciences. AFAIK, the last change (as opposed to an "add on") in a theory of Physics or Chemistry was about 100 years ago. Why is this not an important difference?

Also, what is your definition of "legitimate empirical sciences"? Why wouldn't it include astronomy, paleontology, climatology, etc.?
. . . I would include them, I would just make the distinction that I made, precisely because they change much more often and find it harder to convince the public they are right.

BTW --- I would limp climatology in with economics as sciences that TPTB want to distort so they can make more money.
#15193873
Truth To Power wrote:
There are a number of terms you could be referring to, so if I give you one, you can always disingenuously claim it is another one. Name the one you claim I don't know, and I will either point you to a post of mine where I used it, proving you wrong, or I won't be able to, proving you right.



#15193882
Steve_American wrote:Everyone can make the prediction that "The recent trend will continue."

That's kinda the point: MMNE claims predictive empirical validity based on the routine success of predictions that are essentially of that sort.
Therefore, the only interesting predictions are about when the recent trend will continue stops being true.

Right. Which is the kind of prediction MMNE cannot make with reliable accuracy, and never will.
Yes, that is my claimed point. That some sciences are, in fact, inferior because they can't do experiments.

Oh, but they can do experiments. Just not controlled experiments. Performing observations of nature under specified conditions without trying to affect the phenomenon you are observing is very much a valid experiment in empirical science.
And so, as a result, find it harder to "prove" to the public that what they think is true, is true. So, the public trusts them less.

You really think the public doesn't trust astronomers' assurances that the planets will stay in their orbits because we can't conduct laboratory experiments with them??
Also, these inferior sciences find it necessary to change their accepted theories far, far, far more often than the other natural sciences. AFAIK, the last change (as opposed to an "add on") in a theory of Physics or Chemistry was about 100 years ago. Why is this not an important difference?

I think your characterization of that difference is highly problematical.
Also, what is your definition of "legitimate empirical sciences"?

A science whose hypotheses are checked by reference to empirical observations of objective physical reality.
Why wouldn't it include astronomy, paleontology, climatology, etc.?

It would.
. . . I would include them, I would just make the distinction that I made, precisely because they change much more often and find it harder to convince the public they are right.

I don't agree that that invalidates them as empirical sciences.
BTW --- I would limp climatology in with economics as sciences that TPTB want to distort so they can make more money.

And I agree. But we might not agree on just who is distorting it, how, and why.
#15193884
Steve_American wrote:ToP, I'm sorry, but I don't understand you there.
In particular this part, "community of those excluded that create it, ...".

The community that consists of the people whom the landowner excludes from that location is the same community that makes the land more advantageous through the services and infrastructure its government (i.e., taxpayers) provide and the opportunities and amenities the people of the community provide in the course of pursuing their own private activities.
Can you also explain what you were referring to with that "it"?

"It" is the unimproved rental value of the location -- i.e., what the high bidder would have to pay to use the location if a tornado came and removed all the fixed improvements.
Also, how is "the unimproved rental value of their location" determined or calculated in a fair or 'scientific' way?

The market measures value, and there are well-developed techniques that professional private appraisers use to determine what the market's measure is. When assessment authorities are mandated to use the same techniques, as in British Columbia, the property value rolls are as accurate as the estimates of professional private appraisers. An AI system that had access to all recent real estate sale and rental transaction data and professional private appraisals for the community could likely do significantly better.
#15193898
Truth To Power wrote:The community that consists of the people whom the landowner excludes from that location is the same community that makes the land more advantageous through the services and infrastructure its government (i.e., taxpayers) provide and the opportunities and amenities the people of the community provide in the course of pursuing their own private activities.

"It" is the unimproved rental value of the location -- i.e., what the high bidder would have to pay to use the location if a tornado came and removed all the fixed improvements.

The market measures value, and there are well-developed techniques that professional private appraisers use to determine what the market's measure is. When assessment authorities are mandated to use the same techniques, as in British Columbia, the property value rolls are as accurate as the estimates of professional private appraisers. An AI system that had access to all recent real estate sale and rental transaction data and professional private appraisals for the community could likely do significantly better.

So, the community is not the people who live there (on or very near) the 'location'. It is the wider community that paid the taxes of the gov. unit that built the infrastructure that gave that plot of land at that location its higher value.

OK. That is what I finally thought. [You all know that I constantly rant about the use of pronouns that don't have an obvious noun that they refer to.]

So, in NYC there is very little vacant land (and it needs to be near or very near the land in being assessed) so how do you separate out the vacant value from the value of the building on it? Or in London, or Paris, etc.?

One new question.
The people who live there is the tenants, so that is simple. In the World Trade building, would that become the number of people who work there on a normal day? On, Sunday? Or what? It makes a huge difference.
.
#15193907
Steve_American wrote:So, the community is not the people who live there (on or very near) the 'location'. It is the wider community that paid the taxes of the gov. unit that built the infrastructure that gave that plot of land at that location its higher value.

The community is the people all living under one government. There are levels of community just as there are levels of government. LSR is best suited to junior governments because land can't move to a more advantageous jurisdiction. IMO national governments should be much smaller, and are best funded by seigniorage on money issuance and Pigovian taxes, which are not feasible for junior governments.
So, in NYC there is very little vacant land (and it needs to be near or very near the land in being assessed) so how do you separate out the vacant value from the value of the building on it? Or in London, or Paris, etc.?

There are well-known (though not particularly simple) techniques for doing so. AI could do it very quickly and accurately given the available transaction and appraisal data.
The people who live there is the tenants, so that is simple. In the World Trade building, would that become the number of people who work there on a normal day? On, Sunday? Or what? It makes a huge difference.

Does anyone live there? If it's actually someone's residential address for purposes of voting, driver's license, etc., then that plot of land gets their individual LSR exemption.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]