Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics

[Fake Boris]

Boris,
I'm not exactly sure what you're taking about with reference to philosophy. Could you point me in the right direction. How do see economics changing and what will it become. Do you know what kind of people become economists? The thing about economics is that economists have complete control over it. Economics is exactly what they want it to be and so it will be in the future

What I am referencing to wrt to philosophy is the Critique of Pure Reason by Kant. He convincingly demonstrated that purely rational statements were not empirically tenable, and that knowledge *always* require an empirical component on top of reason. This intervention shattered pretty much everything that had been known as metaphysics and rational theology, and paved the way for unabated scientific materialism, which was still relatively frowned upon in the 18th centtury.

It seems to me inevitable that economy will sooner or later undergo a similar critique because:

1) Economists make a lot of abstract assumptions that are difficult to support empirically, or even are internally inconsistent
2) Careless economists treat as "a priori" assumptions laws that were derived from empirical observation

I think that truly competent economists understand this, but most don't seem to. Just like the truly great philosophers before Kant understood this implicitly. In the end economy will need some sort of reality check, preferably from within itself. I can sense it coming, but it'll probably a long while before it becomes common sense.

Addendum:
Illustration of what I've just said.

I distinctly remember KrazyHorse and Kuciwalker making the point that eroding middle class salaries are compensated by the superior quality of today's consumer goods. But they seemed to deny, not so long ago, here, that there was a "qualitative" benefit to being rich, and that it could be OK to "tax" it.

[giblets]

I distinctly remember KrazyHorse and Kuciwalker making the point that eroding middle class salaries are compensated by the superior quality of today's consumer goods. But they seemed to deny, not so long ago, here, that there was a "qualitative" benefit to being rich, and that it could be OK to "tax" it.

I don't get it. They don't think wealth has any benefit beyond being able to consume it, but what does that have to do with the improving quality of consumer goods? IIRC Kuciwalker was claiming the CPI doesn't adequately account for the improving quality of consumer goods, but I don't see what that has to do with whether being rich has additional qualitative perks.

[KrazyHorse]

Ob is stupid and doesn't understand basic economics. Arguing with him about a critique of the current state of economics as a discipline is futile.

[Hauldren Collider]

OB doesn't understand basic anything. The only thing he's good at is smugness and pretending he's better than other people.

[Fake Boris]

Ob is stupid and doesn't understand basic economics. Arguing with him about a critique of the current state of economics as a discipline is futile.

So you keep pretending that your insight about this is superior, and you keep refusing to share it. (Though you did last time I asked, which is an improvement). And this despite the fact that I've always been more than willing to acknowledge superior evidence when you present it.

Why don't you answer the question I asked?

[Hauldren Collider]

So you keep pretending that your insight about this is superior, and you keep refusing to share it. (Though you did last time I asked, which is an improvement). And this despite the fact that I've always been more than willing to acknowledge superior evidence when you present it.

Why don't you answer the question I asked?

Boris, if someone were arguing with truther about 9/11, it would be more productive to just say "he's a truther and not worth arguing with" than actually directly addressing the validity of his claims.

By extension, discussing economics with you is a pointless exercise. It's like pissing in an ocean of piss. Only do it if you have a desperately full bladder.

[Fake Boris]

Let me guess: HC has first claimed that I was a ******, and then that arguing with me would be pointless, given that I am a ******.

[Kidlicious]

Boris,
Economists do tend to look for empirical evidence. Do you know anything about chaos theory?

[Fake Boris]

Boris,
Economists do tend to look for empirical evidence. Do you know anything about chaos theory?

Of course they do. They seem to have issues concatenating the evidence with the rational assumptions.

What does chaos theory have to do with this?

[Fake Boris]

I don't get it. They don't think wealth has any benefit beyond being able to consume it, but what does that have to do with the improving quality of consumer goods? IIRC Kuciwalker was claiming the CPI doesn't adequately account for the improving quality of consumer goods, but I don't see what that has to do with whether being rich has additional qualitative perks.

IIRC he said more than this. He said that the CPI not accounting for the improving quality of consumer goods dismissed its usefulness in assessing improvements in standards of life.

[giblets]

IIRC he said more than this. He said that the CPI not accounting for the improving quality of consumer goods dismissed its usefulness in assessing improvements in standards of life.

I think it would be possible for someone to consider the CPI useless, and still believe that wealth is nothing more than deferred consumption. I don't see what the contradiction is.

[Fake Boris]

I think it would be possible for someone to consider the CPI useless, and still believe that wealth is nothing more than deferred consumption. I don't see what the contradiction is.

When you're doing this kind of analysis, you are trying to assess the meaning of numbers wrt to a certain set of facts or values. How much "philosophical" analysis someone is willing to admit, when doing this, seems to depend on his personal biases.

[giblets]

When you're doing this kind of analysis, you are trying to assess the meaning of numbers wrt to a certain set of facts or values. How much "philosophical" analysis someone is willing to admit, when doing this, seems to depend on his personal biases.

I don't understand the point you're trying to get accross. Are you saying Kuciwalker's level of tolerance for philosophical analysis varies? What does this mean?

[Kidlicious]

Of course they do. They seem to have issues concatenating the evidence with the rational assumptions.

What does chaos theory have to do with this?

Can you explain, give an example? Chaos theory is a possible explaination why empircal data doesn't help.

[Kidlicious]

Of course they do. They seem to have issues concatenating the evidence with the rational assumptions.

What does chaos theory have to do with this?

Can you explain, give an example? Chaos theory is a possible explaination why empircal data doesn't help.