A World Of Free Movement Would Be $78 Trillion Richer

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Kind of like Long Term Capital Management, the central banks, etc.? Really useful modeling right?

There's another reason large companies hire economists and do econometrics. They can write it off. Government hires economists for another reason as well, they specifically hire Keysnians because that school of thought says that government intervention is helpful. If you were a corrupt government that wanted to give their friends stuff, and economist A says "the best thing is for you to take a hands off approach" and economist B says "the best thing is for you to exert regulatory control and monetary control over the economy" which school of thought would you hire economists from?

If they were really so concerned with accurate modeling, wouldn't every FED chairman who said "no recession on the horizon" DURING a recession immediately resign and fire everyone that created that conclusion with their modeling? What's a better hypothesis, those people maintain their positions because the central bank wants to get the best models, or because they have no concern for that and they are just there to propagandize the public about the economy? Which one of those explanations better explains why no one is ever fired or forced from their jobs when their models predict a situation in diametric opposition to the situation that happens IRL?

More uninformed opinions that only further demonstrate how little you know about economics. Economic models predict a range of statistical outcomes, any of which have a chance to come true. Pointing to one example where people bet incorrectly on a model’s most likely outcome doesn’t negate the usefulness of models but only shows your misunderstanding of how Wall Street Quants work. As for the Central Banks, your naiveté in thinking that their goal is to help keep the economy humming along only shows how much you don’t know outside of the lab. Do you likewise think that the goal of medicine is to help people get better? And no, businesses do not hire economists for a tax deduction FFS. They also don’t pay people to dig and refill ditches in their parking lot for a tax deduction either.
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Here come the insults again. What a surprise. However there is nothing incorrect with what I said. What you are describing may or may not be bad science and the incorrect manipulation of raw data. But given your penchant for making obviously incorrect statements about economics, I have no reason to think that your opinions in biochemistry are any more valid.
So no, you haven't ever used or looked into the mechanics behind a molecular assay. Got it.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
And no, businesses do not hire economists for a tax deduction FFS. They also don’t pay people to dig and refill ditches in their parking lot for a tax deduction either.

They don't hire economists for the deduction, but the deduction takes away the risk of wasting the salary. They hire them on the off chance that something useful will come from them, but mostly because everyone else does.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom