The 2008 financial crisis seemed complex, but it really wasn't. It was a straightforward fraud smothered with bafflegab.
In Dwight Eisenhower's celebrated military industrial complex speech he warned of government being taken over by technocrats spewing incomprehensible jargon. The basic issues of values aren't complicated.
The 2008 financial crisis seemed complex, but it really wasn't. It was a straightforward fraud smothered with bafflegab.
In Dwight Eisenhower's celebrated military industrial complex speech he warned of government being taken over by technocrats spewing incomprehensible jargon. The basic issues of values aren't complicated.
Your: "It was a straightforward fraud smothered with bafflegab."
Exactly. That the fraud's makeover could occur successfully is good example of that "dismal state" of (the sciences of) both economics and communication*, vs the clearly more robust state of (the sciences supporting) rhetoric and psy-ops.
------
* That is, information transfer between humans, not the manipulation of humans, the latter being the thing taught in "schools of communication"
When I was a graduate student in mathematics we looked down on the economists as propagandists larding their stuff with impressive irrelevant math. It works in cases like airplane tickets but for the most part their assumptions are bogus so everything that follows is quatch. Why is it like this?
Some rich guy gives a university a lot of money if they will advocate for his policies. The Hoover Institute at Stanford is a good example.
For this reason I find 19th century economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith of better quality. They write clearly about the basic issues, which haven't changed. (Note: Adam Smith's work is frequently misrepresented for modern nefarious purposes.)
"... larding their stuff with impressive irrelevant math."
I'm glad to hear your attitude toward that. When I was an undergrad major in the early '80s and brought this up with faculty once working on a paper. Guy looked at me as if I had two heads etc. -- i.e. not that my concern was stupidly wrong, but that he couldn't conceive of there being any problem. I decided to avoid any econ as profession.
"The Hoover Institute at Stanford is a good example [of money corruption]." Today, they all are suspect, no matter the location or political leaning. Of course, good people are everywhere too, but too often silenced or strangled. (I like Marcia Angell's assessment on medical research over a decade ago in this regard. Paraphrasing, "It's FUBAR.") i.e. There is simply no choice but to judiciously do the heavy lifting oneself.
Shortly before Timothy Leary's death he was quoted as saying "think for yourself." I was struck that never once before had I been exposed to this idea via the media.
The 2008 financial crisis seemed complex, but it really wasn't. It was a straightforward fraud smothered with bafflegab.
In Dwight Eisenhower's celebrated military industrial complex speech he warned of government being taken over by technocrats spewing incomprehensible jargon. The basic issues of values aren't complicated.
Bafflegab 😂😂.
My: "... the dismal state of economics ..."
Your: "It was a straightforward fraud smothered with bafflegab."
Exactly. That the fraud's makeover could occur successfully is good example of that "dismal state" of (the sciences of) both economics and communication*, vs the clearly more robust state of (the sciences supporting) rhetoric and psy-ops.
------
* That is, information transfer between humans, not the manipulation of humans, the latter being the thing taught in "schools of communication"
When I was a graduate student in mathematics we looked down on the economists as propagandists larding their stuff with impressive irrelevant math. It works in cases like airplane tickets but for the most part their assumptions are bogus so everything that follows is quatch. Why is it like this?
Some rich guy gives a university a lot of money if they will advocate for his policies. The Hoover Institute at Stanford is a good example.
For this reason I find 19th century economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith of better quality. They write clearly about the basic issues, which haven't changed. (Note: Adam Smith's work is frequently misrepresented for modern nefarious purposes.)
"... larding their stuff with impressive irrelevant math."
I'm glad to hear your attitude toward that. When I was an undergrad major in the early '80s and brought this up with faculty once working on a paper. Guy looked at me as if I had two heads etc. -- i.e. not that my concern was stupidly wrong, but that he couldn't conceive of there being any problem. I decided to avoid any econ as profession.
"The Hoover Institute at Stanford is a good example [of money corruption]." Today, they all are suspect, no matter the location or political leaning. Of course, good people are everywhere too, but too often silenced or strangled. (I like Marcia Angell's assessment on medical research over a decade ago in this regard. Paraphrasing, "It's FUBAR.") i.e. There is simply no choice but to judiciously do the heavy lifting oneself.
Shortly before Timothy Leary's death he was quoted as saying "think for yourself." I was struck that never once before had I been exposed to this idea via the media.
… he’s outside looking in …..
"he takes you on trips around the bay" or something like that.