Because the US economy is held up by a specific form of financial magic - world reserve currency.
Kinda blows my mind that the US is on a strongly antagonistic & isolationist streak in that context. Seems like a great way to turn the US economy (and prosperity) into a smoking crater
N_Lens · 32m ago
Economics seems more like a religion than science, with how much fundamental belief and perceptions seem to influence outcomes.
stop50 · 4m ago
That is why there is no nobelprize for economics. Only an Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
elif · 4m ago
Correct. Success in modern market economics is 90% about determining the future sentiment of economists.
braiamp · 11m ago
And we have very rigorous models that confirm that that is true. Perception shapes the economy more than actual fundamentals, specially when predicting the future.
_heimdall · 19m ago
I've taken issue with economics being considered a science since my first econ class in high school.
It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the past, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
braiamp · 19s ago
> it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.
squid_ca · 13m ago
Edit:replied to wrong post
squid_ca · 11m ago
Economics isn’t a science, it’s a social science
terminalshort · 11m ago
Macroecon, yes. Micro is actually very useful and has a good amount of predictive power.
rrsp · 10m ago
Could you recommend any good resources for learning more about microeconomics?
HPsquared · 27m ago
There are certainly a lot of apologetics.
bell-cot · 13m ago
Yeah - but mainstream economics is far more a state religion than it is just-a-religion. The priesthood is superficially concerned with the welfare of the masses, theological consistency, etc. - but the actual priority is divining what words, doctrines, and predictions would best serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and regularly pronouncing those. And vehemently denouncing any heretics who get too interested in the actual welfare of the masses, or the track record of the priesthood's predictions, or other dirty truths.
So long as you have the right mindset, being a priest of a generously supported state religion is a very cushy job.
braiamp · 5m ago
Yeah man, we are only to serve the rich, not because we are trying to solve the problem of scarcity nor we toot about the welfare state. Stop listening to popular economists, read about the science. We've figured this out, the problem is political.
jcfrei · 9m ago
The US will likely go down the same path every other country has gone before with an unpayable debt burden: Just inflate it away. Which is bad for people with fixed-income investments in the US and across the globe, ie. mostly pensioners and people with lots of bonds in their retirement funds. And also likely bad for people with jobs who will face yet another cost of living crisis. If your money is in real estate, equities or gold you should be fine though.
Retric · 1m ago
US’s effective debt burden, debt * (interest rate - inflation), isn’t particularly high right now. Unfortunately some politicians seem to have decided unlimited increases in debt isn’t a problem. There’s no way to solve that as long as people are happy to elect them.
rubslopes · 11m ago
It's not really clickbait per se, but to non-economists, saying "they made a model of the U.S. economy" may sound like they did a novel thing. Bear in mind that creating models of the economy is basically what macroeconomists do all the time.
christophilus · 13m ago
I think we should change the title to: economists need to improve their Fortran skills.
OneFriend2575 · 41m ago
Kinda wild that the model just gave up when it hit current debt levels. Not because the math was off but because it assumes we’ll “fix things later” by default. That’s not a forecast, it’s blind hope baked into the system.
Feels like we’ve passed the point where debt is just a background worry. If the models can’t even handle where we’re at now, maybe the risks are way closer than we’d like to think.
joules77 · 1m ago
Well don't dismiss blind hope :)
Want to screw with an Economist, ask them for a model that can keep the Vatican afloat for a thousand years through empires/nations/currencies collapsing.
rvba · 38m ago
If the model cannot handle when we are now, then it is a vad model.
Same for a model crashing.
Different thing is if it showed that repayment is inpossible.
The article mentions a ery important subject, but quality is low.
It is interesting that the complaint is that the model would not converge. Convergence might be a nice property to have or desire, but simple systems don't necessarily converge. For instance ecosystems are chaotic.
HPsquared · 43m ago
Whenever I read about macroeconomics I remember the Phillips machine, the MONIAC (MOnetary National Income Analogue Computer):
Kinda blows my mind that the US is on a strongly antagonistic & isolationist streak in that context. Seems like a great way to turn the US economy (and prosperity) into a smoking crater
It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the past, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.
So long as you have the right mindset, being a priest of a generously supported state religion is a very cushy job.
Feels like we’ve passed the point where debt is just a background worry. If the models can’t even handle where we’re at now, maybe the risks are way closer than we’d like to think.
Want to screw with an Economist, ask them for a model that can keep the Vatican afloat for a thousand years through empires/nations/currencies collapsing.
Same for a model crashing.
Different thing is if it showed that repayment is inpossible.
The article mentions a ery important subject, but quality is low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
It is interesting that the complaint is that the model would not converge. Convergence might be a nice property to have or desire, but simple systems don't necessarily converge. For instance ecosystems are chaotic.
https://youtu.be/beuseJ0Wm3M