Imaginos1892 wrote:'Schooling', 'education', and 'learning' are not interchangeable terms.
If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world can't stop you. If you don't want to learn, the best can't help you.
Very true, assuming you have access to data and information. Three cheers for WWW. You also need to refuse to be certain. Someone who knows it all seldom learns how much he doesn't know.
WeirdlyWired wrote:Milton Friedman the total delusional. Hired by the government in the beginning of The Great Depression (the biggest failure of the free market)He took all of his government salary and in the face of reality preached against government interference in the market. And proved that there are in fact 4 kinds of lies, not 3: Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Mathematical models.
IIRC, we have had depressions and recessions throughout history. The question is why the one in the 30s lasted so long. There are many theories, such as Harry Dent's emphasis on cycles and demographics.
From: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Hoov ... icies.html
When it was all over, I once made a list of New Deal ventures begun during Hoover’s years as Secretary of Commerce and then as president. . . . The New Deal owed much to what he had begun.1 —FDR advisor Rexford G. Tugwell
Was the market really free
Many historians, most of the general public, and even many economists think of Herbert Hoover, the president who preceded Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a defender of laissez-faire economic policy. According to this view, Hoover’s dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. The reality is quite different. Far from being a bystander, Hoover actively intervened in the economy, advocating and implementing polices that were quite similar to those that Franklin Roosevelt later implemented. Moreover, many of Hoover's interventions, like those of his successor, caused the Great Depression to be “great”—that is, to last a long time.
I claim that theories need to be tested by high confidence evidence, and not just in the sciences. One statement made is that since the ten most liberal US states have lost population and employers, while the ten most conservative states have gained, this means people are voting with their feet. If so, there should be like patterns between different countries.
OTOH: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mi ... ates-blue/
shows that the reality is more complicated than the theory.
Isn't it always? Theories are mental maps, and the semantics people tell us the map is not the territory. In judging where to invest, I try to keep this FIRMLY
in mind to prevent loud objections from my personal finance records.
The basic pattern I use is to study a theory by checking out the related part of reality. Since I can't see all of reality, since (as has been noted) people often filter evidence using biases and assumptions, since I thus have a dependence on sources that are not totally reliable, I'm sure to be wrong somewhere, probably in multiple cases. The fun comes in trying to find out just where: I study theories, but try to follow the policy of that scientist in Edward E. Smith's Subspace stories and discard theories when available data conflicts with them.