You can actually do exactly the same thing. Look up, for example, Auction Theory. There are many of these micro theories that can be used to make predictions about what will occur under idealized conditions and they are based on both mathematics and controlled experiments. The problem is in using them to make predictions in a complex system, which is very difficult in the same as carbon dating, as awesome a tool as it is, isn’t enough to answer questions about how human language capabilities evolved, let alone what the next dangerous strain of influenza will be able to do.
Let me put it this way. There is a reason why years later people are still arguing about whether or not WW2 or the New Deal contributed more or the most to pulling us out of the Great Depression, and that data has been combed over, spit out, simulated over and over again and the arguments are still split based on political ideology more than fact. You really think you can do better with 2009’s recession by just doing what the other sciences do… really?
I… what? When did I make this claim? All I said was that there was broad consensus about the effects of the stimulus, then pointed out that the consensus was as not as solid as the one around the threat posed by global warming, to calibrate the amount of “concrete facts” that support the argument. I later explained why that was a reasonable comparison point to use. I don’t even understand what it is you think I’m claiming or arguing for.
This statement. You follow it by admitting it’s not as settled as some other conclusions that you find in say hard science (again not a good comparison), but the statement is a lot more concrete than I think the data suggests it is. Now having said that, I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting this is true, but I also know this sort of data is very difficult to prove.
They had a kind of anecdotal saying too when we studied and simulated this kind of event… What’s the difference between a recession and a depression? A recession is when you lose your job. A depression is when I lose mine… mostly because the terms themselves aren’t exactly agreed upon when it comes to definition.
aka how are you going to get most economists to agree that we avoided a depression level event when most economists don’t even agree on what defines a recession vs. a depression… even that is still a debate in many circles.
Like I said in my response to Timex, it’s impossible for me to make a single statement that you can’t find little quibbles with if you want to argue the definition of terms. I used the capital-D to denote that I was referring to a dip in the economy of comparable depth and length to the Great Depression. I used “analytical conclusion” to denote that it is the opinion of people who have studied the issue. I used “most economists” to indicate that this is a relatively consistent opinion among those who have studied the issue. I didn’t say, “it is a proven fact” or “there is no disputing this” and I didn’t attempt to quantify the effects of the stimulus beyond “people thought we were heading for a collapse similar to the Great Depression and stimulus was needed to avert it, and now people think that the stimulus we had was effective.” The very fact that there is broad agreement that the stimulus was effective is a pretty strong mark in its favor in a profession where political ideology and scarcity of empirical evidence make it difficult to agree on anything. So is your problem with my claim simply that you aren’t sure what the definition of “is” is?
No my issue with the approach is the how loosely we compared current economic problems to the Great Depression and how often politicians stand in as economists and make statements you’d never really see an actual economist use. The Great Depression saw around a 25% unemployment rate without including minorities and working women in that equation at all. The stimulus package certainly had an affect, but do we really think without it we would have hit a Depression (capital D here) level economic downturn? I find it difficult to believe nor do I find any evidence to support that most economists believe we would have seen that level of financial ruin. This doesn’t mean the stimulus didn’t have an affect, because evidence by economists suggest it did… but there is no simulation out there with any precision comparable to global warming measures or evolution science that suggests without it we would have seen somewhere in the ballpark of a 30-40% unemployment rate, at least none that are coming from a reliable economic based source.
Well, there is Greece. I am glad I don’t live in Greece right now. Or Spain, or Italy. Although we are beginning to look.a bit like Japan.
Fair and balanced.
That jumped out at me too when I read the article.
In the category of ‘not at all surprising’, Roger Ailes Used Fox News Budget to Finance ‘Black-Room’ Campaigns Against His Enemies
At the same time, Greta Van Susteren is out.
She had a “key man” clause in her contract, stating that if Ailes ever left, she’d get to renegotiate. She optioned that clause and her and Fox couldn’t come to an agreement.
Brit Hume will be taking over the On the Record show.
I expect Susteren to join Trump’s news network after the election.
2017! New year, new changes!
Megyn Kelly is leaving Fox News for… NBC!
Holy crapola.
Ah, now the hard right can finally focus their full hatred and rage towards her.
She was always a plant!
American Conservatism everyone.
Reverse mcarthyism seems like a good thing, since it was pretty bad.
We are all guilty of reverse fascism by opposing the Spray-Tan-In-Chief-Elect.
Barf.
I have educated my children to be reverse-racists, I guess. Reverse-McCarthyism sounds A-OK in my book.
Oh wait, maybe they’re just doing that old schtick where they vilify anyone who does any kind of protesting against their guys?