[ravenstine]

That's really not a good way to address blanket statements. Just referring to nebulous "smart people" adds nothing.

It doesn't need a detailed rebuttal.

Here are some examples of reasonable responses:

- How do you know that?

- When in history did that happen?

- Could you be more specific?

None of those require more than one sentence, or implying that the person is too stupid to have an opinion.

[thomashobohm]

Sorry, let me be clear: by "smart people" I mean economists who have spent their lives studying monetary and fiscal policy and analyzing how it can be used to make the world a better place.

Not sure why the onus is on me to be "reasonable" in my response when we all agree that the person I was replying to was making an entirely unreasonable assertion.

[logicchains]

>I mean economists who have spent their lives studying monetary and fiscal policy and analyzing how it can be used to make the world a better place.

This means nothing when they haven't been held accountable for bad predictions. I work in finance, and it's super easy to build a model that looks like it can predict the future, but fails completely when applied in practice, due to some statistical/modelling error. Predicting the future is damn hard; it's way easier for us to convince ourselves that a model is correct than to actuallly produce a correct model, so if somebody isn't subject to a constant process of feedback (a scientific process) it's very unlikely they're producing correct models. Crystal healers have also spent their lives trying to determine how crystals can be used to make the world a better place; it doesn't mean squat because they don't apply the scientific method in their research.

From an economic perspective, if these people really had models that could predict the future, they'd be traders, not economists. Because why settle for a meagre economist's salary when they could be making millions?

[thomashobohm]

I'm not sure what your point is? The comment I was replying to said "we know this is always true" I said, actually, economists aren't really sure about that issue. If your concern is that economists aren't good at making certain predictions, then guess what, we agree. Economists are also acutely aware of this fact and most of the ones involved in actual economic research are careful not to overstate the implications of their models.

Regardless, I simply have to laugh at your comment. The "finance bro says economists are all morons who would be traders if they actually knew anything" trope is pretty great!

[dang]

I know online arguments can be super frustrating, but can you please not be a jerk in your posts here, regardless of how wrong other people or you feel they are? You posted something like half a dozen swipes in this thread that broke that site guidelines. This is the sort of thing that degrades discussion badly because the toxins compound.

It sounds like you know more about this field than others. That's great—but then the thing to do is share some of what you know, so we all can learn. If you mix it with cheap shots and swipes, that not only breaks HN's rules, it discredits the truth you're trying to advance, which is not in your interests or anyone else's.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[thomashobohm]

Sure, sorry!

[cultus]

The nebulous "smart people" is a good thing to bring up when a tech person is Dunning-Krugering outside of their field.

[andreilys]

Except the field of economics is filled with Dunning Kruger’s, despite years and years of education.

I am yet to find a macro economist that is sensible and intelligent.