Please, someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstream economists that came to be as predicted. - Page 2 - 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

#15049222
Crantag wrote: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.


Yes it does benefit the monied classes. That was covered in the TED talk video by the Nick man.

It is a false narrative.

So now the question becomes what @Steve_American wanted to distinguish? Which economists are 'mainstream' and which are not?

Obviously the neoliberal modle as @late has pointed out? Has been put through the shredder.

What will replace it? What are the innovative and new models?

The answer are cooperative models that emphasize not greed but cooperation and reciprocity.

The logic behind reciprocity? In anthropology one tries to find answers to human behavior. Our closest cousins in terms of DNA are primates. Chimps, guerillas, and orangutans and among these are bonobos and capuchin monkeys.

F. De Waal wrote a novel that I loved and was highly entertaining Steve_American, it was entitled Chimpanzee Politics (power plays among chimp groups--hint hint, it is surprisingly similar to human behavior with political power plays) there is another behavior study ( inequality and fairness), in which he also studies things like reciprocity. Humans and it turns out monkeys also notice what kind of thing is going on next door to them and with their neighbors...and they make conclusions, they protest, they react, to many things.

Here is an interesting video:



You think people don't know when they are getting stiffed with pay or benefits and will just accept it forever....? Lol. No.

People share a lot with the other primate ancestors. Including knowing when they are not getting what is fair. ;) :lol:
#15049253
Steve_American wrote:Please, someone tell me...

Google is your friend.

6 economists who predicted the global financial crisis:

Nouriel Roubini

Ann Pettifor

Steve Keen

Dean Baker

Raghuram Rajan

Peter Schiff


:)
#15049264
Rancid wrote:@Steve_American, what do you think about those 3 people that won the nobel prize for their work in so called development economics? Looks like they had some real tangible results from their work.

How did they bullshit that work?

If you gave me names or more info I could look them up and reply.
I never heard of this because I'm not an economist.
#15049266
Steve_American wrote:If you gave me names or more info I could look them up and reply.
I never heard of this because I'm not an economist.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/here-ar ... on-it.html

They won because they basically used economics to improve the conditions for a lot of people in developing countries.

I listened to an interview with the women. One of her comments was "When the theory doesn't match up with the facts, then the theory is wrong and needs to change."

This kind of goes against what you were claim about economists.
#15049284
ingliz wrote:Peter Schiff

Wasn't he one of those Libertarian retards who predicted hyperinflation. A bit like we had to put up with all those Conservative retards who predicted that Obama would make himself king. I certainly don't know about every case but we need great caution about claims around the 2008 financial crash. Many of them predicted a different type of crisis and predicted that it come years earlier than it did. And when it did happen they often said it was just the first stage, with their apocalyptic later stages failing to come about.
#15049489
ingliz wrote:Google is your friend.

6 economists who predicted the global financial crisis:

Nouriel Roubini

Ann Pettifor

Steve Keen

Dean Baker

Raghuram Rajan

Peter Schiff
:)

This proves nothing.
First, I asked for a prediction that included numbers. These didn't have numbers. They were just warning about a coming problem. The problem may have been a different problem one from what happened.

Second, they are not all Mainstream economists.
Nouriel Roubini seems mainstream.
Steve Keen is NOT mainstream.
Ann Pettifor is NOT mainstream. . She is a political economist. which is different form a regular economist.
Dean Baker is not mainstream.
Raghuram Rajan was not an economics major in an American Univ. BS in enginnering. So, he's not mainstream.
Peter Schiff is a student of the Austrian School of economics and so is probably mainstream. But, see Rich above.
. . . So, 4 out of your 6 economists who predicted a crash in about 2007/2008 were not Mainstream economists. Does 1 or 2 general predictions that sort of come to pass sound like a scientifically accurate prediction to you? How many other Mainstream economists were saying in 2006/2007 that everything is/was fine, that the business cycle had been tamed. [OK, "tamed" is my word.]

Also, there were several MMT economists that you left out. Or google left out.

Therefore, you didn't meet my challenge.
#15049521
Steve_American wrote:I mean one about numbers. Like the GDP will grow at a rate of 3% for 3 years. Not "the GDP will grow."


:eh:

That an as riddiculous like asking a meterologist about the exact weather, to the number after the dot, for the next couple years.

Should meterology also abandon maths just because they cannot possibly reach such high precision ?

And economists have to make a statement about an even much harder to measure system, which is the behavior of people. Good luck trying to predict THAT one.



Steve_American wrote: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".


Bullshit.

EXACT, natural sciences, such as physics, can do it. Sometimes. Meteology is also a natural science, but they cannot do it, either.

Social sciences are about behavior of humans. They never could do that and never will be able to do that.

P.s.: And thats not about mainstream or not mainstream, either. If you ask for precise numbers, economy simply cannot do that.
#15049717
Negotiator wrote::eh:

That an as riddiculous like asking a meteorologist about the exact weather, to the number after the dot, for the next couple years.

Should meteorology also abandon maths just because they cannot possibly reach such high precision ?

And economists have to make a statement about an even much harder to measure system, which is the behavior of people. Good luck trying to predict THAT one.


Bullshit.

EXACT, natural sciences, such as physics, can do it. Sometimes. Meteorology is also a natural science, but they cannot do it, either.

Social sciences are about behavior of humans. They never could do that and never will be able to do that.

P.s.: And that's not about mainstream or not mainstream, either. If you ask for precise numbers, economy simply cannot do that.

Actually we now know why meteorology can't be exact. It is because the small errors in measuring the inputs grow with each iteration of the calculation when the equation is not linear.

Clearly macroeconomics has the same problem. However, mainstream economists have not yet begun to use chaos maths to solve their equations. They mostly do this by just assuming that linearity is a close enough approximation to give good results. Of course when they make this assumption they totally remove *ALL* the interesting aspects of the equation.

The thing about social sciences deal with human behavior is a common excuse that economists give. It ignores the fact that most other social sciences want answers for individuals, that is, what this specific one person should do. While macroeconomics deals with the actions of millions of people.
Hard science can deal with air molecules bouncing around in a jar because there are a lot of them in the jar and it all averages out. Why can't macroeconomists do the same with millions of people in the market?

And anyway, if we assume that what you said there is totally right on, then why don't we tell economists to go fuck themselves because they admit that they can't predict anything?

So, they make predictions, we use them to guide policy decisions, and then later on they say, "Hey, no one can predict what millions of people will do, and that is why we got it exactly backwards."
And we listen to them again anyway. This is insanity.
#15049784
Steve_American wrote:
However, mainstream economists have not yet begun to use chaos maths to solve their equations.

The thing about social sciences deal with human behavior is a common excuse that economists give. It ignores the fact that most other social sciences want answers for individuals, that is, what this specific one person should do.

While macroeconomics deals with the actions of millions of people.
Hard science can deal with air molecules bouncing around in a jar because there are a lot of them in the jar and it all averages out. Why can't macroeconomists do the same with millions of people in the market?

And anyway, if we assume that what you said there is totally right on, then why don't we tell economists to go fuck themselves because they admit that they can't predict anything?

So, they make predictions, we use them to guide policy decisions, and then later on they say, "Hey, no one can predict what millions of people will do, and that is why we got it exactly backwards."
And we listen to them again anyway. This is insanity.



Models don't solve equations. They try to imitate something reasonably well. That's not a solution, it's a description. But that might still be a good point.

We're back to the forecasting/climatology conundrum. Economists focus on the aggregate, you know, forest versus the trees.

To put this wryly, people don't average out. You have a furiously complex system, and the most important part of the system isn't rational.

Again, forest versus trees. The bits and pieces that make up a strong economy we know something about. Getting politicians to work on education and infrastructure and reform is another matter entirely.
#15049849
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.

Modern mainstream neoclassical economics has essentially only one prediction -- the recent trend will continue -- and it is usually pretty accurate. If it tries to make any other prediction, the accuracy is essentially random.
#15049914
late wrote:
Models don't solve equations.

This is just silly. People solve equations. Models shape equations.
They try to imitate something reasonably well. That's not a solution, it's a description. But that [models?] might still be a good point.

Maybe models can make a good point, but very rarely when they include false assumptions.
We're back to the forecasting/climatology conundrum. Economists focus on the aggregate, you know, forest versus the trees.

To put this wryly, people don't average out.

Why do you say this?
You have a furiously complex system, and the most important part of the system isn't rational.

MMTers have told me that mainstream economic theory simplifies the problem by assuming that there is just 1 person who is the market and he never dies.
And yet he sells stuff to himself. Also, he doesn't use money. It is all barter.
Now can this model give good results about the "market"?
Again, forest versus trees. The bits and pieces that make up a strong economy we know something about. Getting politicians to work on education and infrastructure and reform is another matter entirely.

Mainstream economics simplifies things by removing all those bits and peices, or so MMTers tell me.
#15049953
Steve_American wrote:
1) This is just silly. People solve equations. Models shape equations.

2)Why do you say this?

3) MMTers have told me that mainstream economic theory simplifies the problem by assuming that there is just 1 person who is the market and he never dies.
And yet he sells stuff to himself. Also, he doesn't use money. It is all barter.
Now can this model give good results about the "market"?


4) Mainstream economics simplifies things by removing all those bits and peices, or so MMTers tell me.



1) Models are equations. You seem to think this is something to be solved. It's not like that. Models are descriptive, not proscriptive.
https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Perspectivism-Ronald-N-Giere/dp/0226292134/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1574312940&sr=8-4

2) Macroeconomists "is a branch of economics dealing with the performance, structure, behavior, and decision-making of an economy as a whole."
They are looking at the forest, not the trees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics

3) He was trying to use terms you would understand. Not what he'd put in a journal to be placed under scrutiny.

4) They also try to take what they think and give it to the public. Most of it is not controversial. We were the first country to champion public education, we know it's a crucial part of the Modern World. Dealing with infrastructure problems was a major issue for the first fully capitalist economy, England. That will never change.

So it goes.
#15049981
Steve_American wrote:
@late,
Your reply is so nonsensical that I can't reply.



1) My link was to Ronald N Giere, who is a physicist turned prof of the philosophy of science. Also my fave phil of sci...

You prob grew up with your teachers talking about scientific laws. No one talks like that anymore. Science doesn't develop laws, they build ideas, and because anything in science can be changed, that gives everything a tentative quality.

2) That's the definition of macroeconomics straight out of Wiki.

3) You were trying to refute something someone said. It was ex cathera...

4) A lot of the advice economists hand out is stuff we learned a hundred years ago, or more. A lot of the complaining about economists is really about the politics swirling around economic issues. Take the crash that happened a decade ago. Every sane economist knew repealing Glass-Steagall, and hobbling the regulators, was a terrible idea. It didn't happen because they wanted it. It happened because the government is corrupt, a corruption everyone should oppose.

The only people that oppose it are the Progressives, and the only person who fully understands how to do it, and is passionate about doing it, is Liz Warren.
#15051804
late wrote:
1) My link was to Ronald N Giere, who is a physicist turned prof of the philosophy of science. Also my fave phil of sci...

You prob grew up with your teachers talking about scientific laws. No one talks like that anymore. Science doesn't develop laws, they build ideas, and because anything in science can be changed, that gives everything a tentative quality.

2) That's the definition of macroeconomics straight out of Wiki.

3) You were trying to refute something someone said. It was ex cathera...

4) A lot of the advice economists hand out is stuff we learned a hundred years ago, or more. A lot of the complaining about economists is really about the politics swirling around economic issues. Take the crash that happened a decade ago. Every sane economist knew repealing Glass-Steagall, and hobbling the regulators, was a terrible idea. It didn't happen because they wanted it. It happened because the government is corrupt, a corruption everyone should oppose.

The only people that oppose it are the Progressives, and the only person who fully understands how to do it, and is passionate about doing it, is Liz Warren.

4] You are right, of course. OTOH, that is the problem, isn't it.
The world was on the gold standard a 100 years ago, or at least thought it would be back on it soon. WWI had just ended.

Now the world is not on the gold standard and that changed many things. But, economists didn't change even 1 thing.

2] I don't give a shit what wiki thinks is the definitive definition of 'macroeconomics'.
I'm an MMTer. That means that I question everything any mainstream economist says. Wiki is written by many people so it is just mainstream shit when it comes to most 'economics' stuff.

1] The link went to a place I could buy a book by your guru. I am retired to SE Asia and I can't get books shipped here at a reasonable cost.


_____ __________________________ __________
On the note --- of the request in the OP.
So, far there are no examples of predictions that were right, not one.
One person made excuses for why this is so. But did not reply to my question of "Why should we take advice from "scientists" who admit that their predictions are full of sh*t?"
Another person pointed out that a few did predict the GFC/2008. But, most of the 6 pointed to were not mainstream economists, and the prediction is not accurate enough to qualify for what I asked for. I wanted numbers, not a vague "there will be a recession soon, i.e. in a few years or so". There needed to be an accurate reason for what the trigger would be. And I'd cut some slack on the trigger. That is, if they said that excess private debt would cause it or just deepen the recession that was caused by some other trigger; then that would have been enough, if the prediction had been about numbers. which it wasn't.

But to restate it, I wanted a prediction than most, but not all, just 51% mainstream economists would buy into before it came to pass, NOT AFTER IT CAME TO PASS. I was not asking if one mainstream economist might once in a while get something right. NO, I was asking for when most mainstream economists agreed on something and it did come to pass.

And, so far, not one of you has thought of one example. And yet, most of you still listen to them as if they knew what they are talking about.

BTW --- most MMT economists did predict the GFC/2008, and maybe all of them did.!

Nope. Nope. Schiff's "political action"[…]

This means that going forward every Republican (ma[…]

Turn, turn, turn

1) There's no question about it. So far, they h[…]

@Truth To Power I pointed out that your graph […]