Current Affairs Cost of living…

Status
Not open for further replies.
dCahill17 said:
lol I’m sure your ex did.

Mathematics is based on axioms not assumptions. And everything else is deduced, gold standard of proof, abstract world rules are fixed. The predictive power of economics has long been known as weak.

“Both Shiller and Hayek have voiced their concerns about the limitations of economic models and the difficulty of predicting economic events with great precision” Nobel prize winners in the field.

Comparing a mathematical proof with an economic model is perfectly valid, and shows the difference in power of being able to say something with certainty v economic modelling.

And if you don’t care about assumptions just results then you just have loads of models with random scatter and eventually someone is right, then the model fails again. Which is funnily enough a criticism I have seen of economics when it is described as a pseudo science.

The claims I’ve made are the following

1) economics has weak predictive power.
2) there is more than one cause of inflation
3) cost push inflation is the main cause of the cost of living crisis due to the war in Ukraine which has seen rampant increase in costs of energy and raw materials such as grain
4) printing money QE can cause inflation

Your claim is I’m wrong a quack blah blah economics has high predictive power, when it doesn’t.


Good day!


.
Click to expand...
Axioms are assumptions. Different string of letters, same denotation, with 'axiom' having the additional connotation of math or formal logic.

I've heard your criticism of barefoot empriricism before, and put far more eloquently than you're capable of, but it turns out that you're wrong. A good example is UPS routing their trucks in ways that avoid left turns. It's not necessary to understand that left turns result both in a greater risk of accidents and wasted fuel idling at lights to figure out that left turns cost the company money. The causal process only became apparent once someone did the data analysis, then inducted causality. David Hume approved this message.

Claims #1 and #3 are nonsense. The cost of living crisis is caused primarily by the end of QE. We always end up here, sooner or later, and there's a stack of quality economic theory that explains why. The secondary cause of the cost of living crisis (and the cause of extreme changes in the price of individual goods like cars) is globalized supply chains going sideways. If the store can't stock toilet paper, or the manufacturer of the vehicle can't get the chips they need to complete vehicle production, then of course the price goes up once the shelf or showroom fills. The retailer isn't stupid, and realizes that there are reasons they can't fill the shelf or showroom floor. They charge more in response.

Which is more or less why claim #1 is nonsense. Claim #3 looks good at a surface level, if you believe claim #1, but it happens to be wrong.

Yarrgh said:
TLDR: @dCahill17 is a grade A buffoon.
Click to expand...
I know, but I do enjoy handing them a bit of rope now and again and seeing where this takes us. I will concede that this doesn't make me all that different from Prevenger when he engages in his worst impulses. If anything, the truth is that I'm far more sadistic. I slow roll people, and by choice.

There is also the argument that the definition of the process I am describing is education. Learning is painful. Small wonder that some people avoid it.
 
Calvin said:
And just in case anyone is wondering, inflation is a Stealth Tax, it’s a mechanism that the elites use to steal / transfer your wealth to pay for the massive debts that they have build up.
Which is why they are lying to you when they say they are “fighting Inflation”, they want inflation.
Click to expand...
This
 
Martin Alvito said:
Axioms are assumptions. Different string of letters, same denotation, with 'axiom' having the additional connotation of math or formal logic.

I've heard your criticism of barefoot empriricism before, and put far more eloquently than you're capable of, but it turns out that you're wrong. A good example is UPS routing their trucks in ways that avoid left turns. It's not necessary to understand that left turns result both in a greater risk of accidents and wasted fuel idling at lights to figure out that left turns cost the company money. The causal process only became apparent once someone did the data analysis, then inducted causality. David Hume approved this message.

Claims #1 and #3 are nonsense. The cost of living crisis is caused primarily by the end of QE. We always end up here, sooner or later, and there's a stack of quality economic theory that explains why. The secondary cause of the cost of living crisis (and the cause of extreme changes in the price of individual goods like cars) is globalized supply chains going sideways. If the store can't stock toilet paper, or the manufacturer of the vehicle can't get the chips they need to complete vehicle production, then of course the price goes up once the shelf or showroom fills. The retailer isn't stupid, and realizes that there are reasons they can't fill the shelf or showroom floor. They charge more in response.

Which is more or less why claim #1 is nonsense. Claim #3 looks good at a surface level, if you believe claim #1, but it happens to be wrong.


I know, but I do enjoy handing them a bit of rope now and again and seeing where this takes us. I will concede that this doesn't make me all that different from Prevenger when he engages in his worst impulses. If anything, the truth is that I'm far more sadistic. I slow roll people, and by choice.

There is also the argument that the definition of the process I am describing is education. Learning is painful. Small wonder that some people avoid it.
Click to expand...

Your definition of axiom is wrong, and the implications are massive when using self evident truths for rigorous deduction v assuming something is true when it is not, like the velocity of money in the quantity theory of money model. To say they are basically the same is seriously deluded.

For example. axiom 1 of mathematics. A straight line may be drawn from any point to any other point. This is not an assumption, that’s why it’s called an axiom. It’s a self evident truth. If economic assumptions were any good or axiomatic, then the predictions wouldn’t be wrong all the time, which they are famous for being so.

I have no issue using empirical methods to make statistical inferences, and utilise the scientific method for repeatable predictable results. Such as your UPS example which is a stark contrast to economic modelling. This would be the next step down from the gold standard of mathematical deduction and proof. Btw you prove nothing with this method, the UPS example. Huge difference.

Economic modelling doesn’t do repeatable reliable predictions. It’s like modelling the weather, or a double swinging pendulum. There’s a reason it’s not considered a proper science. Its Nobel Prize winning practitioners are well aware of the issues. As I provided evidence for, the foundations it’s built on are weak hence it has weak results.

As for your other points. I’m sure they are contributing to inflation, however the war and the cost of energy, the cost of raw materials, that is what is causing the massive inflation in my opinion and that is the main cause. If your energy costs 4 times as much what happens to costs then price?

Just one example below, if the war doesn’t happen that doesn’t happen. And it is affecting inflation. To say inflation would have happened like it is anyway is a lie.


1698843472913.png
 
dCahill17 said:
Your definition of axiom is wrong, and the implications are massive when using self evident truths for rigorous deduction v assuming something is true when it is not, like the velocity of money in the quantity theory of money model. To say they are basically the same is seriously deluded.

For example. axiom 1 of mathematics. A straight line may be drawn from any point to any other point. This is not an assumption, that’s why it’s called an axiom. It’s a self evident truth. If economic assumptions were any good or axiomatic, then the predictions wouldn’t be wrong all the time, which they are famous for being so.

I have no issue using empirical methods to make statistical inferences, and utilise the scientific method for repeatable predictable results. Such as your UPS example which is a stark contrast to economic modelling. This would be the next step down from the gold standard of mathematical deduction and proof. Btw you prove nothing with this method, the UPS example. Huge difference.

Economic modelling doesn’t do repeatable reliable predictions. It’s like modelling the weather, or a double swinging pendulum. There’s a reason it’s not considered a proper science. Its Nobel Prize winning practitioners are well aware of the issues. As I provided evidence for, the foundations it’s built on are weak hence it has weak results.

As for your other points. I’m sure they are contributing to inflation, however the war and the cost of energy, the cost of raw materials, that is what is causing the massive inflation in my opinion and that is the main cause. If your energy costs 4 times as much what happens to costs then price?

Just one example below, if the war doesn’t happen that doesn’t happen. And it is affecting inflation. To say inflation would have happened like it is anyway is a lie.


View attachment 233552
Click to expand...
It's really not a lie though, it's factual. The gas prices aren't the only thing that has gone up, see the UK M2 money supply...

1698850683004.webp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top