Elites and Constant False Predictions

[Anonymous No.9541252]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout

NY Times esteemed economist and nobel prize winner predicted a worldwide recession with no end when Trump was elected.

Why are economists and political elite so bad at predictions?

[Anonymous No.9541257]

Work for major news org
Esteemed education credentials and nobel prize winning research

This person represents the height of the elite and yet look at his prediction success rate.

[Anonymous No.9541261]

>>9541252
because economics is not a science.

[Anonymous No.9541263]

>>9541261
Yes but why are the elites constantly giving false and wrong predictions with no error correction function?

This esteemed elite lost zero credibility and is still widely cited for economic prediction powers.

[Anonymous No.9541268]

>>9541257
You have to separate his academic work from his popular literature.

His actual peer reviewed work is very important but nowadays he's basically a pundit.

[Anonymous No.9541269]

because you make bank if everyone thinks the economy is gonna crash.
he literally falseflagging to make money.
I made half my yearly salary on the stock market during election week

[Anonymous No.9541270]

The point being

Once you earn a certain status object like some random prize. It means more than successful prediction to elite standing. He can go on for the past 15 years with horrible predictions and faulty economic analysis but still be given the same regard as if all of it was correct based on instiutional standing.

[Anonymous No.9541306]

"If Trump wins we should expect a big markdown in expected future earnings for a wide range of stocks — and a likely crash in the broader market (if Trump becomes president)." Eric Zitzewitz, former chief economist at the IMF, November 2016.
"Trump would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession." Simon Johnson, MIT economics professor, in The New York Times, November 2016.

[Anonymous No.9541317]

Once you gain a certain amount of clout its harder to stay out of the public eye than in it. People want Krugman to be correct(Because he shares their views), and will quickly forget if he isn't.

[Anonymous No.9541330]

>>9541252
elites are unable to distinguish their personal desires from facts of reality, so if they hate Trump voters so much they want the economy to crash, then it must be the case that the economy will crash, even if it doesn't crash, perhaps especially if it doesn't crash

[Anonymous No.9541355]

CIAtimes and all pseudo-liberal shills are paid to act as if they were against Trump, as if they "hold power accountable", while they are nothing more than controlled opposition propagandists doing their bidding.

[Anonymous No.9541397]

>>9541355
s-s-s-shut the thread down

[Anonymous No.9541510]

>>9541355

>We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false

lol sounds reasonable

[Anonymous No.9541513]

>>9541355

Also that hilarious name "psychological operations"

[Anonymous No.9541555]

>>9541510
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

[Anonymous No.9541565]

>>9541252
Elites pay the people who produce the results that validate their bloated lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.9541572]

He is a hack. He doesn't follow his own economic models.

[Anonymous No.9541589]

>>9541565
>yachts
>private planes
>mansions
etc

Climate change is brought up and you notice it never is about luxury carbon emissions. Whereas the people crying about climate change use 50x more carbon than the people they want to cut down on it.

[Anonymous No.9541590]

>>9541263
>Yes but why are the elites constantly giving false and wrong predictions with no error correction function?
>This esteemed elite lost zero credibility and is still widely cited for economic prediction powers.

Meme answer: Da joos

Actual answer: Because the reward/punishment system for these kinds of predictions more or less pays no heed to facts or accuracy. This is the underlying dynamic of "fake news" etc; the methods of meme dissemination are optimized for monetizeablility and meme propagation, not verifiable correspondence with facts.

[Anonymous No.9541593]

[Anonymous No.9541596]

>>9541589
They know that a carbon tax isn't going to affect them.

[Anonymous No.9542954]

>>9541252
that’s one economist


get 100 or better yet, 1000 respected economists to agree or refute krugman’s assumption then when you get the consensus, we can go from there


1 economist’s opinion doesn’t diminish all economist’s opinions

[Anonymous No.9543005]

>>9542954
Consensus has shit to do with science. Stop reading NYTimes and spending freetime on Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.9543054]

>>9541590
You might be the man that single-handedly proved that /sci/ is the most balanced board on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.9543056]

>>9541593
although to be fair by 2005 the impact of the internet had NOT been greater than fax machine.
Unlike fax machine though, it had more possibility to grow on.

[Anonymous No.9543070]

Elites use fear to control the massses

if elites gave the plebians any "Real econonic advise" they would find their position as "the elites" quickly in jeopardy.

[Anonymous No.9543115]

>>9543056
>2005 the impact of the internet had NOT been greater than fax machine.
Let me guess, born 1999?
By 2005 google was already destroying ad revenue for print, amazon was obviously going to ruin the high street, wikipedia was making century old encyclopedias irrelevant, email had already replaced both fax machines and the postal service, there were new internet subcultures popping up monthly. Oh, and youtube had just started.
What have fax machines achieved, other than infuriate people trying to make a contract exchange?

[Anonymous No.9543132]

>>9543115
lul and what have we had since then? fuckbook, twatter, leddit.... the future is bright indeed

[Anonymous No.9543136]

>>9543132
Everyday someone's career is being destroyed by a #metoo campaign on twitter.
Just because the internet has lead to a dystopia doesn't mean it didn't have an impact.

[Anonymous No.9543139]

>>9541355
Who the fuck cares if the CIA is running things? Media is going to be untrustworthy regardless of the boogeyman behind it. Also I think the CIA has better things to do than steal business from ((((((((((((jews)))))))))))

[Anonymous No.9543159]

Well mainly because most empirical prediction in economy suffers from a problem with the assumption that ex post = ex ante. it is dangerous to assume that historic behaviour in one world state is equal to future behaviour in another world state, when dealing with people, and not laws of nature. Futhermore aggregating one agent behaviour into a rational agent is dangerous. However, if nothing of that sort existed economics would basically be "People make different choices. Thats all i safely can say"

[Anonymous No.9543172]

Because stupid people will believe anything that aligns with their feels/political views without doing any research whatsoever because "they don't have the time". Especially someone who is a world renowned economist. The average person has no idea how economics work, they just assume that these anonymous folks have their best interests in mind. Same applies to statistics.

Ex.some news anchor saying "economists predict" or "statistics say" followed by some informatio which the station cherry picked from someone's research which they're being paid to air.

People don't know a bad statistic from a good one, nor do they care because they make decisions based on emotion rather than logic. See Pro-Lifers.

[Anonymous No.9543183]

>>9541252
>tfw they taught us in school the world was going to be pretty much dead by the mid 2000's

>then they told us it would DEFINITELY be fucked by the 2010's

Meanwhile shit just keeps on keeping on.

I guess there has to be a point where the scales tip and we get some really horrible stuff happening though. I mean I suppose people in the late 1800's figured stuff would just kind of meander on as it was going for a lot longer.

[Anonymous No.9543186]

>>9541252
1. He's an economist. Social sciences are not real sciences. They are humanities.

2. Krugman's predictions were never intended to be taken seriously. They were propaganda. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.9543188]

>>9541263
>Lost zero credibility

The New York Times could report that 1+1=2 and they would have 50% of the population disbelieving them. Their credibility has been shot for years.

[Anonymous No.9543723]

>>9541252
Because they don't take into account that they themselves are part of the system that they're trying to predict and by making predictions they are affecting the outcome.

[Anonymous No.9543786]

>>9541252
he's the same hack who said Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.9543920]

>>9541593
This was an extremely popular opinion in the 90's. There was no one who was just an average joe just going on the internet for shiggles like they do today. Most people thought it was just gonna be like a new tv thing you could read the paper on.

[Anonymous No.9543925]

>>9543786
It literally is.

[Anonymous No.9543964]

>>9543920
>This was an extremely popular opinion in the 90's.
and this is why free markets and small government is better than "experts"

[Anonymous No.9544052]

>>9543925

[Anonymous No.9544398]

>>9543005
>Consensus has shit to do with science


Are you a fucking brainlet? That’s all science is based on

[Anonymous No.9544429]

>>9544398
If you are arguing for meaning holism, then you are equivocating. If you are arguing that consensus like (97% of scientists say X) is a core part of science, you are a fucking moron and should stop posting on sci.

[Anonymous No.9544438]

>2007
>we project higher economic growth next year
>economy crashed
>QE will create inflation

lmao

[Anonymous No.9544480]

>>9541263
Because economics is a joke profession full of crony apologists. Read into some of the economic think tanks backing from big businesses.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=37018

[Anonymous No.9544482]

>>9541589
>be elite
>ship all the manufacturing industry to coal burning third world nations with no pollution controls
>then ship all the goods back on massive ships using bunker fuel
>complain about carbon emissions

[Anonymous No.9544520]

>>9543920
It's almost like this fucking idiot isn't the "average Joe," and is supposed to be an esteemed economist, and a nobel laureate.

[Anonymous No.9544526]

Economics are too complex for anyone to make seriously accurate predictions

and it doesn't help that most of these top economists let their politicals intertwine with their analysis, makes it dogmatic shite

[Anonymous No.9544528]

>>9543115
>what have fax machines achieved
only an absolute fucking revolution in terms of enabling world wide trade which back then was perceived as impactful as email would later be perceived as.

all these technologies build on each other, in actual fact but also in people's minds.

[Anonymous No.9544540]

>>9541252
as for the factual statements made in this piece, they're all correct.

>putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation
accurate

>It’s true that we’ve been adding jobs at a pretty good pace and are quite close to full employment. But we’ve been doing O.K. only thanks to extremely low interest rates. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But what if something bad happens and the economy needs a boost? The Fed and its counterparts abroad basically have very little room for further rate cuts, and therefore very little ability to respond to adverse events.
accurate

>a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work
so far accurate; only short-term fixes and bs coming out of the wh

>Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
accurate

so let's put it this way: it may look okay for now, but that certainly isn't to be credited to the current administration. it's not even necessarily to be credited to the previous one entirely, as it is in part an effect of global interest rates and overall tendencies.

so what are you saying? he's incorrect because a year in the Trump admin hasn't yet managed to fuck over the economy like they've managed to butcher everything else? give them time; have faith.

[Anonymous No.9544550]

>>9544540

You can't make a doomsday prediction and then back out of it like that. What are we supposed to do, keep waiting until that day when the economy actually pulls back, which could be years, and is an inevitability of any period of sustained growth, and then say "aha I was right"? That's textbook confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.9544551]

>>9544540
>t. texas sharpshooter

[Anonymous No.9544568]

>>9544550
if the Trump admin actually manages to show in numbers that their policies don't destabilize the economy, then you can say he was wrong. for some policies, e.g. trade related stuff, that can be determined quite early on, i.e. after 18 to 24 months - but he'd have to make some meaningful trade deal policy first before we can start the clock on that. for stuff like the tax breaks, supposedly named after the fact they present a break of paying somewhat less taxes for a few years, which are to have long-term effects by design, you'll have to wait out longer.

>>9544551
what?

[Anonymous No.9544576]

>>9541252
(((Krugman)))

>Oy vey, if Trump is elected, it will be anudda Shoah!
>Krugman was born to a Jewish family,[15] the son of Anita and David Krugman


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Wow, it's almost as if these people use their fellow tribesmen in academia and media to act in unison.

>>9544568
>if the Trump admin actually manages to show in numbers that their policies don't destabilize the economy, then you can say he was wrong.

Note that this is equivalent to saying:
>If the religious skeptic can't provide evidence that God doesn't exist, then you can't say that the religious fundamentalist is wrong.

[Anonymous No.9544578]

>>9544550
ah, forgot to address one point.

>what are we supposed to do
live your life. you are presumably heavily privileged (i.e. fairly intelligent, fairly educated, somewhat capable of handling your economic status by putting your brain to work) anyway, so much of this won't impact you (negatively) anyway.

think about who you want representing your country better next time. maybe elect a serious god damn conservative instead of this dumbass, if you can't bring yourself to vote for someone interested in actual progress rather than preservation (which is not to say the latter isn't a valid option).

[Anonymous No.9544583]

>>9544576
>hating on jews
it's 2018.

>note that this is equivalent to saying:
ah is it, then? the part where i explicitely emphasized "show in numbers" didn't tip you off to the fact that the analogy you're making is a strong contender for "dumbest shit anyone's said this year" award?

fuck off, will you. if you can't into basic reasoning, at least stop bothering others with it.

[Anonymous No.9544584]

>>9544578

I don't like the term "progress". There is change, people make proactive changes that they think will be more conducive to positive economic activity, ok. But there is a solid chance that that change causes regression.

I had two options and I decided not to vote for the big government, cultural marxist who was going to try to outlaw white malehood. This past election was a failure at the primary level, the DNC rigged the Democratic primary and the Republican primary was hijacked by extremists.

[Anonymous No.9544586]

Bond market is on the verge of collapse, Dow Jones going to 40k

[Anonymous No.9544587]

>>9544583
>>9544578
>Emotionally-charged responses and changing the subject at hand

Classic low-IQ behavior. It's no surprise that you are not able to comprehend even the most basic logical implications.

[Anonymous No.9544590]

>>9544586
Who will buy bonds when the central bank meme stops

[Anonymous No.9544596]

>>9544590
What’s the significance of this? I think it’s an indicator central banks are colluding to prop the market up and then suddenly collapse it when it’s politically beneficial

[Anonymous No.9544598]

>>9541252
Economics is a joke profession filled with basically religious hacks--the loudest ones are neoclassical/neokeynesians, Marxists and Austrians; none of these have very good predictive validity even for their basic tenets and the basics of the most popular one have been debunked (SMD conditions?).

[Anonymous No.9544602]

>>9544584
fair enough. although when i say "progress", i mean it less in an economic sense, but rather in a societal one. for one, healthcare as a right and free college level education is something that can do only good and all things considered, my own experience with the both of them has left me astonished how anybody could be opposed to that.

i do understand the feeling you allude to when you say "outlaw white malehood". although i fall into that category, i don't feel threatened or my rights taken away in any way, but the way certain agendas dominate public discourse annoy the living hell out of me. i mean, it often seems as though toughening up and just pulling through, being somewhat disciplined and preserving of what we have achieved as a culture thus far seems to be a negative thing. and more often than not such language is put forward by people so heavily enabled by all those achievements, they understand them as a given, not as the value our ancestors fought for and that is ours to defend. so yeah.

i still never would vote for what is currently considered "conservative" pretty much globally. not because i'm against conservatisms; simply because such a large portion of it is reactionary rather than conservatism, and that infuriates me just as much.

[Anonymous No.9544604]

>>9544587
>deflecting this hard

you were the one with the false and entirely off topic analogy. if you can't see the stupidity in your comparison, that makes you a fool, and you can't make me suffer fools gladly - call it emotionally charged or what you will.

[Anonymous No.9544618]

>>9544602
>and free college level education is something that can do only good
really? ever heard of Denmark?
http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6

The point of a job isn't to make you happy on the job or for you to chase your infantile dreams of becoming a musician or something--the point is to keep the food on the table, improve society, and give you a sense of fulfillment and security, and that is most efficiently done by following the money. Especially for people who are high intelligence, you'd do much more good in the world by going into high tech engineering than by building wood bridges in South America, for example.

>simply because such a large portion of it is reactionary
can you think of nothing to be reactive against? You're the one arguing for slower economic growth in favor of 'equity'.

[Anonymous No.9544621]

>>9544604
Let me put it this way. If you think Krugman's predictions are correct until proven false, then you could extend that same reasoning to many other things and believe that illogical things are true. Is this difficult for you to understand?

Let me come up with another analogy, which is perfectly sensible, in this context. A sixteenth-century priest argues that the Earth is not only the center of the solar system but also the center of the universe. Prior to Copernicus, using your reasoning, we should just assume the priest is right because he has not been "shown in numbers" that he is wrong.

In short, you're a delusional brainlet and should get off this board.

[Anonymous No.9544625]

>>9544596
? They don't crash the economy for politics. They already own the politicians. They crash the economy so their buddies can buy up competition that has some "hard times" due to the "recession." So we won't see a major bubble pop or market crash until someone wants to make a move and scoop up some small fries, e.g. google takes twitter or something like this. Time isn't right yet, we have until about 2022 I think. But who knows their machinations besides them, could be any time at all.

[Anonymous No.9544653]

>>9541252
This was based on the assumption that Trump would actually do what he talked about in the campaign (e.g. start a trade war with China, among other things).

He didn't really do any of those things though, so he is just another republican president. The only difference is that he tweets, but even there he calmed down.

[Anonymous No.9544695]

Outside of some basic economic principles like supply and demand and certain game theory that was formalized in the 20th century, Economics is elaborate modeling that more often than not does not reflect reality. It is supposed to be a science, and sometimes it tries to be, but it is too political to be taken seriously. The exceptions were given in the first sentence. Long story short, generally don't trust Economists.

[Anonymous No.9544996]

>>9543920
Bullshit. I'm 36 and the internet blew our minds when the www showed up in schools and everyone realized it was going to be this massive new change in how we did things. That was the EARLY 90's. By the late 90's this was beyond dispute. The guy had to be a completely out of touch luddite to be making this claim.