A devastating earthquake, 8.9 on the Richter scale, hit Japan today, causing extensive damage and a large tsunami. I can’t imagine what it would be like to look out your window and see something like this headed your way. Our thoughts go out to everyone affected by the disaster.
A force this big propagates around the world, so beaches here in Southern California were expecting heightened wave activity — nothing very serious, but certainly noticeable. Scientists of course immediately leapt into action to estimate what kind of effects should be expected. The National Weather Service circulated this map of predicted wave heights. Click to embiggen.
Naturally, the House of Representatives is trying to cut funding for tsunami warning centers.
Actually, I do.
Goverment spending, as a fraction of GDP, has stayed more-or-less level for a generation. It was 36.3%, in 1983 under Ronald Reagan. 25 years later, in 2008 (the last year for which I have that data on-hand), it was 36.9%.
Perhaps it is your policy preference that Government spending, as a fraction of GDP, shrink over time, and that any failure to so-shrink is a “steep increase.”
Of course, it’s true that GDP shrank, during the recession, while spending continued along its pre-recession trendline (roughly 6%, in nominal dollars, corresponding to an inflation rate of 3% and a “target” real GDP growth rate of an additional 3%).
Goverment spending doesn’t jump up and down, like a yoyo, in response to the ebb-and-flow of GDP. Apparently, you believe that its failure to shrink during times of recession is a “steep increase.”
The only “policy preference”, at play here, is a preference for higher GDP and lower unemployment. I, mistakenly, assumed that was a policy preference that you shared. I should not make such assumptions, in the future.
No, sorry.
There is no macroeconomic model under which the stimulus was a “bad idea” (in the sense that it lead to lower GDP or higher unemployment than would otherwise have been the case). Different models disagree on the magnitude of the impact it had. There is no disagreement about the sign.
Sigh. Subtlety will get me absolutely nowhere.
I was alluding to the sustainability of our debt-to-GDP ratio, as measured by the interest rate demanded by potential creditors, to be willing to lend us money. Right now, the interest rate on US Treasuries (I used the 5-year note, as an example) is below the projected rate of inflation — people are willing to pay us for the privilege of lending us money.
When I hear a reasonable argument, I’ll give it credence. So far, I haven’t heard any.
Exactly so.
If we can’t even agree on the basic facts, indeed, if you believe that economics is merely “policy preferences” dressed up with mathematics, to make it look more persuasive, there there really isn’t anything for us to discuss.
Just to be clear, the above figures for “government spending” included Federal, State and local spending.
During the same period, Federal spending “increased steeply” (as Tom W would put it) from 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 20.5% of GDP in 2008.
“In any public policy debate, there are, inevitably, multiple sides to an issue. What we should do about a given set of facts is a matter on which reasonable people may disagree.
Disagreeing about what the facts are, is quite a different matter.”
If the world was as straight forward and simple as the preceding quote pretends, I’d wear rainbows every day. The limitation on thinking capable of enabling the mind of a scientist to operate with enough certainty for declarative statements of truth to be made rebelliously in the face of common sense can only be the result of an ignorance to the very reason to differentiate these domains.
A Scientist, as noble as his field and pursuits are, is commonly perceived by those belonging to other areas of endeavor as quick to make very unscientific assumptions associated with areas that may be contrary to the goals of Science. Fortunately, for the sake of truth in knowledge and its proper organization, Science allows for certain types of assumptions to be made within its domain because of elements intrinsic to its very methods and nature. The most obvious assumption is that the intent of peers aligns with the purpose of science, regardless of placement within the social hierarchy. This is safe to assume, as corrupted motivations are mostly irrelevant in science when it comes down to the legitimacy behind a declaration of truth – reason behind direction does not distort the truth discovered along the road.
As an example in random, the goal of one person engaged in political pursuits can often be quite different than that of his/her peer – with each strategically characterizing causation behind a specificity within a complex system consisting of an unknown quantity of agents and actors, with no way to differentiate – all both affecting and being a part of the system in question. A system with its state and movement defined dynamically by elements both known and unknown, with no consensus of desired state. Without even the consensus on under what values the quality of this state would be judged, or even that there is value in truth.
The unknowns that are both feared and exploited in the political realm will never be determined by Science – if it knows what’s good for its own survival. A scientist’s assumptions are naive in a world of relativity without any known variables. The ‘facts’ chosen for an argument are usually assembled for an analysis promulgated to advance the _popularity_ of an idea that a politician may be disseminating to create conditions more favorable to his career, but even that is assuming an agenda that includes his desire to advance his career. That is not known.
The usually effective peer-review system allows for something of a self-governing consensus maker amongst a community advancing towards a shared goal rooted in truth. As a politician I could make policy that may alter institutional structure leading towards a reorganization of scientific specializations that may interact in a way that spawns innovation which changes societal discourse more akin to my liking. In this hypothetical situation you could assemble all the facts using the scientific method and bring about legitimate consensus related in some way to an ‘issue’. The issue, however, is delivered to you. The relevance of the issue defined according to a politically advanced value system structured to serve its function. This ‘issue’ that happens to fall within the specialized focus area of your study domain was prioritized politically – its importance only relative to an agenda outside your view. The relationship between science and politics as been complex and mysterious from the get-go. The only sure thing is the futility of a Scientist that allows for their convergence while still expecting consideration or respect by others who continue to do Science.
Also – ‘Political Science’ is not really Science, it just allows itself the liberty to employ the word’s usage by using its political associations.
“If we can’t even agree on the basic facts, indeed, if you believe that economics is merely “policy preferences” dressed up with mathematics, to make it look more persuasive, there there really isn’t anything for us to discuss.”
Hopefully it won’t throw you into too much disarray when you reach the point in your life where you have the maturity to accept the world as it is, which is most definitely one where the ‘basic facts’ dictate the vast difference between what’s considered the relative importance of, or the desired state of, the reasons behind some configuration or another of a certain operating principles behind one particular method of organizing this complex system. I’d hate to see someone’s naive worldview fall apart when coming to terms with the fact that the agents and actors within the one group in this system which shares the desire for maintaining this particular configuration may not share the goal of a ‘greater good’. The luxury of a ‘common language’ consisting of words with meanings they all share would be the last thing ever acquired in that system, and the first thing lost in the new order that arises.
If you have an actual expectation for political arguments between stakeholders to share the same standards, rules, language, goals or even definition of reality – you have a fantastic conception of the world that you’ve idealized with childlike impressions that ignore even initial glances of Hegel, Marx, Machiavelli, dialectic, and so on. Please don’t try to be a helmsman while insisting the reality of the world is in the form of your ideation – just trust me when I say the changes you would like for the greater good will make the world worse, even with your good intentions.
Sorry – I’ve rambled and most likely didn’t convince you of anything at all. My emotions were stirred while reading your responses to TomW’s reasoned offerings. I shouldn’t have tried to assist him.
I shouldn’t have forgotten the fundamentals of cosmic variance.
Jacques – I was traveling for a few days and stepped away from the argument, but I see Fred W has picked it up nicely.
For the four people on the Internet still reading this comment thread (you, me, Fred, and my girlfriend – and even her patience is waning) I’d like to try to sum up the arguments.
This all started when a science blog made a cheap public policy shot at the HOR. I implored the authors to stick with science, as there is no objective truth in debates over public policy. You interjected and have spent the better part of a week trying to convince me that not only is there objective truth in public policy debates about economics, you are the keeper of this truth. I think your argument can be fairly summed up by the following statement: when I hear a reasonable argument, I’ll give it credence. Translation – when I hear an argument I agree with, we can talk.
You have, I think, perfectly illustrated my point that science and public policy don’t mix. For that I thank you. You have an economic philosophy (interesting that you haven’t mentioned Keynes) and speak as though the insights offered by that philosophy were absolute truths. You make no room (none!) for competing theories or arguments. And you define your terms (spending, for example) to better fit your argument, and respond only to those points you are most comfortable rebutting (go back and take a look at which statements/questions of mine you chose not to answer).
These are not the characteristics of a scientist, or someone with intellectual honesty. They are the characteristics of a believer – someone convinced their view of the world is the only acceptable one. In religion, or politics, this is perfectly normal. As a believer, it makes perfect sense for you to quibble over the term ‘spending increases.’ Someone with intellectual honesty might say ‘you’re right, spending has increased while our tax revenues have gone down but I don’t think it’s an issue because…”. Instead of attempting to convince me that my argument isn’t as effective as your argument, the believer tries to demonstrate that I have no argument at all!
I would venture a guess that your own state of Texas would disagree. I’ve lived there on an off for the last 12 years and, despite this economy, they are doing very well compared to a state like California whose policies,I suspect, better mirror your own preferences. Note that I’m not making an argument here for the correctness of either one, but I am trying to open your mind a little and convince you there is an argument to be made.
Which brings me to the point I made rather uneloquently at the end of my last comment. Until you concede that the other side has a valid argument, we have no place left to go. And we certainly shouldn’t do it on a science blog as we have left the realm of science long ago.
Really? None?
In what sense, then, ought I “give credence” to your arguments? If there’s not so much as a grain of truth in them, the best I can imagine doing is to credit you for their being rhetorically well-constructed.
And, conversely.
Yes, it’s all very congenial for you to compliment me on my arguments. But, if you don’t believe a word of them (or even the premises on which they are based), then such compliments ring hollow.
Correct translation: “When I hear an argument based on non-counterfactual premises, then we can talk.” It doesn’t matter whether I agree with the argument, so long as we can agree that we are arguing from a common set of facts.
Actually, my understanding of recessions is closer to Milton Friedman’s than to John Maynard Keynes’s. Interesting that you should invoke Friedman’s name, whilst making arguments that contradict everything Friedman ever wrote.
You have advanced no competing theory. If you want to advance one, I’d be happy to discuss it. Mere contrary assertions do not a theory make.
As to statements of yours that I chose not to answer, I tried to avoid wandering off on tangents (“Is democracy preferable to communism?”). If you feel that, in so doing, I’ve failed to respond to some important point of yours, please feel free to point it out to me, and I’ll try to address it.
Actually, this is quite relevant. Epistemic relativism appears to have become the default intellectual pose of American conservatives. If anyone thinks that their epistemic relativism is restricted to “non-scientific” issues of public policy, I have two words for you: “global warming.”
Jacques –
You call it a tangent (the question about which is preferable, Democracy or Communism) but it illustrates the central point of my thesis. Point me to the Nature article describing the outcomes of the experiment demonstrating the universal preference for Democracy over Communism. You can’t. Point me to a similar article which demonstrates scientifically that keeping abortion legal is better public policy than making it illegal.
Those are easy examples, economics is a bit more tricky because of all the nice numbers and statistics. But in the end the big decisions still revolve around public policy, which Democrats look at differently than Republicans, the US looks at differently than China, and so on. This seems to me so basic a point that I’m not sure I understand your resistance to it. Both Think Progress and, for example, CATO have very smart people working for them on issues of economics and public policy, yet these smart thinkers come to radically different conclusions.
Nowhere on this page have I advocated a competing theory – that was never my point. My argument has been simply that competing theories exist and in the realm of public policy no theories can be scientifically proven to be ‘correct.’
You seem to be trying to wiggle out of admitting that point by saying competing theories are based on counterfactual premises. And I suppose if you define ‘facts’ then from your perspective that would make sense. I say spending has increased, you say it hasn’t – depending on how you define ‘spending’. You can’t have it both ways – calling arguments I’ve not advanced counterfactual based on your definition of the facts.
All of which illustrates, once again, the folly of debating public policy on a science blog. At least scientists use commonly defined ‘facts.’
Nowhere, in Science, are theories ever “proven to be ‘correct.’” Instead, theories are confronted with the evidence, and shown to be incorrect.
That happens all the time, too, in Economics. (I suggest perusing some Economics journals, to familiarize yourself with what the field actually looks like.)
Jacques –
You asked me before to tell you when you were evading a point by selectively commenting on my posts. Now is that time – you have failed, repeatedly, to address my thesis which I attempt to lay out (again!) in paragraphs 1 and 2 of my last comment. Please agree or explain your disagreement with these paragraphs.
I also don’t appreciate the condescention. I’ve tried to be exceedingly tolerant of your viewpoints despite the fact that neither economics nor public policy is your primary field of study (although public policy is mine). At no point have I dismissed your arguments or suggested you brush up on some fundamentals (although I’ll admit to coming close to that line in an early comment).
I cannot see what non-trivial point is being made in your first paragraph. My best response, “Yes, no, … whatever!” would be as inarticulate as it would be unsatisfying.
As to your second paragraph, that is the crux of our disagreement, and I had mistakenly assumed that I had made my position clear.
My Economist friends, and the (large) number of Economics papers I have read, formulate quantitative models, and confront those models with empirical data. Their methods are instantly recognizable, to any Physicist, as those of Science. No one (least of all, my Economist friends) would claim that they have achieved the same level of success that we Physicists have achieved. The systems they study are vastly more complicated, and the ability to collect good data is vastly more limited. But the spirit of the enterprise is unmistakable.
To assert, as you have done, that Physics is all about “objective facts”, whereas Economics is nothing more than
partisan hackery… ‘scuse me … “policy preferences”, dolled up with “nice numbers and statistics”, is to seriously misconstrue the nature of both fields.And the obvious corollary of your position — that one can, and should, conjure up “valid” economic arguments, in favour of whatever policy preferences one wishes to advance — is one to which I strenuously object.
You say that your field is public policy. I can truly say that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that you evince such a cavalier attitude towards one of the few sources of useful guidance to the crafting of effective public policy. Without knowing you at all, I can confidently predict that policy recommendations, that you produce, are demonstrably worse for it. Not, as you seem to think, because I disagree with your politics (though, doubtless, I do), but because I disagree with your methods.
@Zombie (#3):
The depth of the water affects the velocity of the wave. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/watwav.html#c3 . Note that in this case the shallow water limit has to applied because the wave is excited from the bottom rather than from the top as for wind-excited surface waves. So the velocity is proportional to the square root of the water depth here.
Thomas
Jacques: I hadn’t seen this post until now, and I wish I could have participated in this debate. Your reasoning is absolutely correct in my view. Prudent fiscal policy is primarily aimed at secureing future sources of revenue, and your opponents have not distinguished household budget concerns from macroeconomics. This of course was the same problem for Herbert Hoover, and apparently the lessons of history have failed to make much of an impact.
“Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” Unfortunately, some of them seem to be hell-bent on inflicting their folly on the rest of us.
As to your having “missed the party,” there’s plenty more where TomW came from; I’m sure the opportunity will arise again.