• Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still don’t see this as an oranges to oranges comparison. Or even oranges to mandarins. Or oranges to limes.

    I accept that both systems (weather and economics) are both “chaotic systems”. That doesn’t make them equivalent though. Some infinities are larger than others.

    Trying to model the behaviour of a single human is an incredibly difficult task. Trying to model the behaviour of billions is harder. Then you need to blend in their relationships to eachother. Then you need to blend in their relationships with their means of sustainance. With their individual values. Etc etc etc.

    I accept that some PORTONS of the models are pretty sound. Supply and demand curves? Sure.

    I’ll hit you with a thought experiment:

    If it’s the case that it’s just a matter of reading your econ textbook and then you can accurately model the economy, or even a small part of it, then extracting disproportionate wealth becomes a simple matter of doing some math.

    Why isn’t every econ grad wealthy? Why are there wealthy people who run exactly the inverse plays? Why do the most powerful institutions require bailouts?

    I’m not saying that the theory is bad, but it’s a masterbutory exercise. Applying the theory results is such disparate actual outcomes make it more like legend then law.

    However, I personally think that the frequent rejection of that reality serves a different psychological purpose, which is the need to translate wealth distribution to an explainable system… Specifically one that explains favourably to people who already have the wealth.

    Why am I rich and you’re poor? It’s simple: I merely understand the physics of the economy. You don’t. If you did, you would be where I am.

    And, if someday you gain great wealth, it will be as a direct result of the actions you took, made with confidence as a result of unmistakable stimuli, that anyone could have done.

    Understand me when I say I’m not discounting economic theory wholesale… Not at all. I am just saying giving it more credence than it truly deserves has a peripheral benefit in providing a justification for some kinda shitty social structures that exist now… That ALSO have science backing them. For example, the study of social mobility.

    • hakase@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Trying to model the behaviour of a single human is an incredibly difficult task. Trying to model the behaviour of billions is harder. Then you need to blend in their relationships to eachother. Then you need to blend in their relationships with their means of sustainance. With their individual values. Etc etc etc.

      Trying to model the behavior of a single eddy of wind is an incredibly difficult task. Trying to model the behavior of billions is harder. Then you need to blend in their relationships to eachother. Then you need to blend in their relationships with the causes of those individual eddies. With their individual values. Etc etc etc.

      If it’s the case that it’s just a matter of reading your econ textbook and then you can accurately model the economy, or even a small part of it […]

      It’s not the case. My entire comment was about why that’s not the case at all. Extracting disproportionate wealth is hard for the same reasons weather forecasting is hard. Not because of the theory, but because of the complexity of the system the theory describes.

      I’m not saying that the theory is bad, but it’s a masterbutory exercise. Applying the theory results is such disparate actual outcomes make it more like legend then law.

      You still haven’t shown how this is any different to applying the theory of weather forecasting, or applying the theory of plate tectonics and still failing to predict earthquakes, etc.

      However, I personally think that the frequent rejection of that reality serves a different psychological purpose, which is the need to translate wealth distribution to an explainable system… Specifically one that explains favourably to people who already have the wealth.

      You’re conflating the science of economics with the meta-discussion surrounding the politics of economics.

      This is just like someone arguing that weather science is bullshit because we can’t successfully predict the weather, and it therefore only exists as an excuse to implement more damn liberal environmental policies.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If weather prediction were based on the idea that eddies were produced by gnomes with wooden spoons, you’d have an argument.