Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit

[editec]

Yes, you can't run randomised controlled trials; but that's not what makes a science is it? In every other respect it's methodologically identical to physics.

Sport if oner cannot use scientifric reductionism to isolate what is being tested from the environment, then one cannot USE scientfic method to test one's hypothesis

Economics is an ART, not a SCIENCE (as we use those terms today, at least. The word science used to mean something very different than it does today).


But scientific method demands that one can study phenonema in cases where "all else being equal".

THAT is no more possible in MACRO economics than it is to do in history.

It is, possible, one supposes, in microeconomic studies, but even that is, I believe, somewhat dubious in most cases.

All the econometrics in the world of MACROeconomics does not change the fact that no SCIENTIFIC TESTING is possible

There's extensive testing. The problem, as mentioned before, is that we're unable to easily conduct randomised controlled trials. So that's what econometrics is for; for finding sophisticated ways to determine a parameter "all else being equal". The process of discovery is slower than in say, physics, since we can't easily make some RCTs, but the methodology is otherwise the same.

YOur FAITH is the system of scientific reductionism in the study macro-economics is NOT SUPPORTED by the historical reality of how often economists FAIL to get it right or at least AGREE on their findings.

The very fact that debates about how the economy works between EXPERT ECONOMISTS ought to tip you off as to the difference between a social science and hard science.

Every marco-economic policy is a kind of SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).

I mean, do think about this please...

Economist cannot yet even agree about what CAUSED economic events in the past to happen.

If every economist does not conclude IN RETROSPECT why an event in past happened in EXACTLY the same way?


Then the belief that economist can somehow, using the same metric models PREDICT the effect of an economic policy is nothing more than FAITH BASED THINKING.

And what the above ought to be informing you of is THIS the fundamental difference between the ARTS and the SCIENCES.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what the above ought to be informing you of is THIS the fundamental difference between the ARTS and the SCIENCES.

ah but you forgot that the Fed economists "got their act together in 1980" according to DSGE and from then on there have been absolutely no problems,..... unless you want to count the recent housing depression and worldwide recession, but thats nit picking.

 

[DSGE]

The very fact that debates about how the economy works between EXPERT ECONOMISTS ought to tip you off as to the difference between a social science and hard science.

Because that never happens between physicists?

Economist cannot yet even agree about what CAUSED economic events in the past to happen.

Such as?

If every economist does not conclude IN RETROSPECT why an event in past happened in EXACTLY the same way?

Well that goes back to what I said before. Economics, in methodology, is the same as hard sciences. The thing which prevents it being a hard science is that we can't run randomized controlled trials on past events, can we. We have to rely on econometrics, which is very iffy for the moment. Keep in mind, physics has had several hundred years to get its shit right and it has the privilege of RCTs. Econometrics has only existed for around a hundred years. People are still working on it. The most recent Nobel prize in economics was given to Sims and Sargent for their work in econometrics. So I'm just saying, I know we all want instant gratification, but give it some time.

Then the belief that economist can somehow, using the same metric models PREDICT the effect of an economic policy is nothing more than FAITH BASED THINKING.

Economics has already addressed that. See The Lucas Critique.

And what the above ought to be informing you of is THIS the fundamental difference between the ARTS and the SCIENCES.

I don't understand your definitions of "arts" and "sciences". Yes, it's less hard than physics. But it's more hard than sociology. Why not have something in the middle? A dismal science.

 

[DSGE]

And what the above ought to be informing you of is THIS the fundamental difference between the ARTS and the SCIENCES.

ah but you forgot that the Fed economists "got their act together in 1980" according to DSGE and from then on there have been absolutely no problems,..... unless you want to count the recent housing depression and worldwide recession, but thats nit picking.

The fact that knowingly and blatantly misrepresent other peoples' views tells me you have no interest in understanding them at all. What are you doing here, if not to learn something new? Is it that you won't hear anything that doesn't confirm your bias, or is it just that you like trolling people? I suspect it's the former, in which case, I'm sorry that schooling has failed you so.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what the above ought to be informing you of is THIS the fundamental difference between the ARTS and the SCIENCES.

ah but you forgot that the Fed economists "got their act together in 1980" according to DSGE and from then on there have been absolutely no problems,..... unless you want to count the recent housing depression and worldwide recession, but thats nit picking.

The fact that knowingly and blatantly misrepresent other peoples' views tells me you have no interest in understanding them at all. What are you doing here, if not to learn something new? Is it that you won't hear anything that doesn't confirm your bias, or is it just that you like trolling people? I suspect it's the former, in which case, I'm sorry that schooling has failed you so.

of course if I misrepresented something you would not be so afraid to say exactly what, for the whole world to see?

What does your fear tell you, liberal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You remember there was a surplus under Clinton, right? Who turned it into a deficit? It wasn't a liberal. .

Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budgets Amendments since Jefferson. Liberals killed every one of them including Newts which passed the house and failed the Senate by one vote. Clinton ran scared from Newt (first Republican House in 40 years) and so balanced the budget and lied, the era of big government is over. Is that really over your head??

 

[DSGE]

You remember there was a surplus under Clinton, right? Who turned it into a deficit? It wasn't a liberal. .

Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budgets Amendments since Jefferson. Liberals killed every one of them including Newts which passed the house and failed the Senate by one vote. Clinton ran scared from Newt (first Republican House in 40 years) and so balanced the budget and lied, the era of big government is over. Is that really over your head??

How, in your mind, does that excuse the fact that a republican turned a surplus into a deficit? If they cared so much about balanced budgets, why was it they who unbalanced it?

 

[DSGE]

ah but you forgot that the Fed economists "got their act together in 1980" according to DSGE and from then on there have been absolutely no problems,..... unless you want to count the recent housing depression and worldwide recession, but thats nit picking.

The fact that knowingly and blatantly misrepresent other peoples' views tells me you have no interest in understanding them at all. What are you doing here, if not to learn something new? Is it that you won't hear anything that doesn't confirm your bias, or is it just that you like trolling people? I suspect it's the former, in which case, I'm sorry that schooling has failed you so.

of course if I misrepresented something you would not be so afraid to say exactly what, for the whole world to see?

Here's a hint, maybe it was something to do with the post I replied to?

What does your fear tell you, liberal?

Well from the fact that you keep calling me "liberal", despite my obvious centrism, it tells me you're an imbecile.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You remember there was a surplus under Clinton, right? Who turned it into a deficit? It wasn't a liberal. .

Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budgets Amendments since Jefferson. Liberals killed every one of them including Newts which passed the house and failed the Senate by one vote. Clinton ran scared from Newt (first Republican House in 40 years) and so balanced the budget and lied, the era of big government is over. Is that really over your head??

How, in your mind, does that excuse the fact that a republican turned a surplus into a deficit? If they cared so much about balanced budgets, why was it they who unbalanced it?

Actually power is well distributed in this country?? Have you even finished HS?? Bush was not the government!

 

[DSGE]

Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budgets Amendments since Jefferson. Liberals killed every one of them including Newts which passed the house and failed the Senate by one vote. Clinton ran scared from Newt (first Republican House in 40 years) and so balanced the budget and lied, the era of big government is over. Is that really over your head??

How, in your mind, does that excuse the fact that a republican turned a surplus into a deficit? If they cared so much about balanced budgets, why was it they who unbalanced it?

Actually power is well distributed in this country?? Have you even finished HS?? Bush was not the government!

Oh okay. So then Obama isn't to blame for the current deficit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact that knowingly and blatantly misrepresent other peoples' views tells me you have no interest in understanding them at all. What are you doing here, if not to learn something new? Is it that you won't hear anything that doesn't confirm your bias, or is it just that you like trolling people? I suspect it's the former, in which case, I'm sorry that schooling has failed you so.

of course if I misrepresented something you would not be so afraid to say exactly what, for the whole world to see?

Here's a hint, maybe it was something to do with the post I replied to?

What does your fear tell you, liberal?

Well from the fact that you keep calling me "liberal", despite my obvious centrism, it tells me you're an imbecile.

ok then you're a centrist with a Nazi-like faith in the Federal Reserve even after it just caused a near-depression!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How, in your mind, does that excuse the fact that a republican turned a surplus into a deficit? If they cared so much about balanced budgets, why was it they who unbalanced it?

Actually power is well distributed in this country?? Have you even finished HS?? Bush was not the government!

Oh okay. So then Obama isn't to blame for the current deficit.

Actually BO is a liberal. Liberals have killed all 30 BBA's since Jefferson. No one in American History is more responsible than BO and other liberals like him.

 

[DSGE]

of course if I misrepresented something you would not be so afraid to say exactly what, for the whole world to see?

Here's a hint, maybe it was something to do with the post I replied to?

What does your fear tell you, liberal?

Well from the fact that you keep calling me "liberal", despite my obvious centrism, it tells me you're an imbecile.

ok then you're a centrist with a Nazi-like faith in the Federal Reserve even after it just caused a near-depression!!

So you haven't even attempted to understand where I'm coming from. I blame the Federal Reserve for this whole mess. If you're not even going to try and listen to what other people have to say, and comprehend it, why does anybody talk to you?

 

[DSGE]

Actually power is well distributed in this country?? Have you even finished HS?? Bush was not the government!

Oh okay. So then Obama isn't to blame for the current deficit.

Actually BO is a liberal. Liberals have killed all 30 BBA's since Jefferson. No one in American History is more irresponsible than BO and other liberals like him.

You claimed power is well distributed. If Bush can't be blamed for creating a deficit, Obama can't be blamed for adding to the deficit. Simple as that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You claimed power is well distributed. If Bush can't be blamed for creating a deficit, Obama can't be blamed for adding to the deficit. Simple as that.

Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson

Liberals have killed 30 BBA's since Jefferson

What would your parents say??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you haven't even attempted to understand where I'm coming from. I blame the Federal Reserve for this whole mess. If you're not even going to try and listen to what other people have to say, and comprehend it, why does anybody talk to you?

as I recall you said they could end recession, restore GDP, cause full employment, with no trouble now that they have "their act together since 1980". You have a childs liberal eye view of government

 

[DSGE]

You claimed power is well distributed. If Bush can't be blamed for creating a deficit, Obama can't be blamed for adding to the deficit. Simple as that.

Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson

Liberals have killed 30 BBA's since Jefferson

What would your parents say??

They'd say you made a contradiction and are introducing irrelevant garbage to avoid addressing it.

Bush didn't need a BBA to balance the budget. Being a republican, surely he'd just do it automatically? But no, he turned a surplus into a deficit. You claim "but power is well distributed", which is bullshit anyway because in 2002 republicans had a majority in both houses. If "power is well distributed" enough to somehow force Bush to enter a deficit, following that logic through, power should be well distributed enough to not allow Obama to expand the deficit. If it's not Bush's fault for the deficit, it's not Obama's fault either.

Both your claim that "power is well distributed" and the logic you follow it up with are bullshit.

 

[DSGE]

So you haven't even attempted to understand where I'm coming from. I blame the Federal Reserve for this whole mess. If you're not even going to try and listen to what other people have to say, and comprehend it, why does anybody talk to you?

as I recall you said they could end recession, restore GDP, cause full employment, with no trouble now that they have "their act together since 1980". You have a childs liberal eye view of government

If they adopted NGDP level targeting. But they're not going to do that. They're going to keep pursuing tight money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush didn't need a BBA to balance the budget. Being a republican, surely he'd just do it automatically?

1) not really since he was a weak Republican

2) not really since it would have meant political suicide as it did for Newt. Way over your head.

But no, he turned a surplus into a deficit.

Bush was not the government. Over your head??

You claim "but power is well distributed", which is bullshit anyway

actually dear we have 3 branches of government, the people , and the press

because in 2002 republicans had a majority in both houses. If "power is well distributed" enough to somehow force Bush to enter a deficit, following that logic through, power should be well distributed enough to not allow Obama to expand the deficit.

dear, no one said it was distributed evenly!!!!! Liberals killed all 30 BBA's. Can you grasp that??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you haven't even attempted to understand where I'm coming from. I blame the Federal Reserve for this whole mess. If you're not even going to try and listen to what other people have to say, and comprehend it, why does anybody talk to you?

as I recall you said they could end recession, restore GDP, cause full employment, with no trouble now that they have "their act together since 1980". You have a childs liberal eye view of government

If they adopted NGDP level targeting. But they're not going to do that. They're going to keep pursuing tight money.

so thats Nazi-Liberal magic bullet that will heal the world with billions in mal-investment and another Great Depression!!