Switching lights off for the Earth Hour

[Razgovory]

Many people, Keynesians among them, have tested his theories against data.  He personally did not AFAIK, which does not invalidate his work.

I didn't say any enviromental ends worry me.  You misread my post.

"As long as I doesn't [sic] harm others."  That seems relevant to externalities.

I didn't disagree with you on the externalities.  You are sort of dodging the question about the Autrians and the Keynesians.  The Keynesians do place importance on mathematical models and empirical evidence.  The Austrians do not. Do you disagree with this?  The Austrians prefer a type of deductive reasoning, sort of like the method for proving god exists.  It's closer to philosophy and religion then it is the world of science.  Libertarians tend to view themselves as rationalists and see scientific and industrial process as good.  I agree with them on that to a certain extent.  However, environmental studies cause conflict here, hence peculiar effort to label climate science which gives them results they don't like a "religion" or "luddism".

Are there ill informed hardline environmental activists that make everyone look silly?  Yes, of course.  Everyone has that.

[Neil]

No single person has much of an impact on climate.

[fhdz]

The Keynesians do place importance on mathematical models and empirical evidence.  The Austrians do not.

Some do, actually. Horowitz, for instance. But you're right in that it doesn't tend to be a strength of the Austrian school.

I think it's silly to blanket-dislike an entire school of economics, however. The Austrians have put forth some pretty dead-on stuff, like opportunity cost. Likewise with the Keynesians.

In the end, though, economics is more like an art than a science. Oftentimes it's like performance art.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't disagree with you on the externalities.  You are sort of dodging the question about the Autrians and the Keynesians.  The Keynesians do place importance on mathematical models and empirical evidence.  The Austrians do not. Do you disagree with this?  The Austrians prefer a type of deductive reasoning, sort of like the method for proving god exists.  It's closer to philosophy and religion then it is the world of science.  Libertarians tend to view themselves as rationalists and see scientific and industrial process as good.  I agree with them on that to a certain extent.  However, environmental studies cause conflict here, hence peculiar effort to label climate science which gives them results they don't like a "religion" or "luddism".

Are there ill informed hardline environmental activists that make everyone look silly?  Yes, of course.  Everyone has that.

The Austrians are dead Raz.

Did their writing depend on empirical evidence?  Not the one book that I've (partially) read. Neither did Keynes' General Theory.  Nor did Adam Smith, nor David Ricardo.  Don't quote me on it, but I think econometrics is a relatively recent invention.

I don't know how to respond to your observation that "the libertarians" "label climate science as religion."

[fhdz]

Don't quote me on it, but I think econometrics is a relatively recent invention.

*shrug* It's been around since the late '20s.

The problems with econometrics, like a lot of things, have had less to do with econometrics itself and more with 1) starting from flawed premises (which causes problems in any statistical inference), 2) cherry-picking results, and 3) politicizing based on those cherry-picked results. It's plagued by the same bugbears that plague statistics in general.

[Admiral Yi]

The problems with econometrics, like a lot of things, have had less to do with econometrics itself and more with 1) starting from flawed premises (which causes problems in any statistical inference), 2) cherry-picking results, and 3) politicizing based on those cherry-picked results. It's plagued by the same bugbears that plague statistics in general.

And one of the beauties of econometrics is there are hundreds of thousands of people chomping at the bit to punch holes in your flawed model.

[fhdz]

And one of the beauties of econometrics is there are hundreds of thousands of people chomping at the bit to punch holes in your flawed model.

Oh, absolutely! That's the great thing about math; it's open to very sophisticated peer review.

The unfortunate thing is that often by the time the holes have been punched laypeople have already been swayed one way or another, seeking their confirmation bias.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh, absolutely! That's the great thing about math; it's open to very sophisticated peer review.

The unfortunate thing is that often by the time the holes have been punched laypeople have already been swayed one way or another, seeking their confirmation bias.

Eh, can you give me an example?  I'm stumped trying to think of a case of the econometric coefficient making it into the public discourse.

[Razgovory]

I didn't disagree with you on the externalities.  You are sort of dodging the question about the Autrians and the Keynesians.  The Keynesians do place importance on mathematical models and empirical evidence.  The Austrians do not. Do you disagree with this?  The Austrians prefer a type of deductive reasoning, sort of like the method for proving god exists.  It's closer to philosophy and religion then it is the world of science.  Libertarians tend to view themselves as rationalists and see scientific and industrial process as good.  I agree with them on that to a certain extent.  However, environmental studies cause conflict here, hence peculiar effort to label climate science which gives them results they don't like a "religion" or "luddism".

Are there ill informed hardline environmental activists that make everyone look silly?  Yes, of course.  Everyone has that.

The Austrians are dead Raz.

Did their writing depend on empirical evidence?  Not the one book that I've (partially) read. Neither did Keynes' General Theory.  Nor did Adam Smith, nor David Ricardo.  Don't quote me on it, but I think econometrics is a relatively recent invention.

I don't know how to respond to your observation that "the libertarians" "label climate science as religion."

You are dodging the question here, Yi.  I'm not talking about the founders, I'm talking about the school.  Does Austrian economics enshew mathematical models and empirical evidence? If so does this make them different then some other economic schools?

[Admiral Yi]

You are dodging the question here, Yi.  I'm not talking about the founders, I'm talking about the school.  Does Austrian economics enshew mathematical models and empirical evidence? If so does this make them different then some other economic schools?

I'm not dodging the question Raz, and if you continue with the combative tone the discussion is over.

I don't who "the school" is beyond Hayek and the other guy is I think is dead.

[Razgovory]

Seriously?

[Razgovory]

I think it's silly to blanket-dislike an entire school of economics, however. The Austrians have put forth some pretty dead-on stuff, like opportunity cost. Likewise with the Keynesians.

What about Marxism.  Or the Cambodian skull based economy school.

[MadImmortalMan]

Stimulus for a skull-based economy: Ban contraception and subsidize machetes. 

[fhdz]

What about Marxism.  Or the Cambodian skull based economy school.

Marx made some useful observations.

[11B4V]

Is this the dumbest thing imaginable or what?

When the Ley Lines energize, you wont have to worry about it.