[throw93232]

》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed.

Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus.

And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar parallax (main prediction from Copernicus theory) was not confirmed until 19th century! Heliocentrism is mainly philosophical concept!

I will stick with my primitive old thinking and biases, thank you! If I get mugged a few times in a neighbourhood, I will assume it is not safe. There is no need to overthink it!

[zwkrt]

I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a description of epicycles because it probably means that whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit.

In this case I’m not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems like the “rational actor” model of economics has a lot of problems.

Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to achieve their goals and meet their needs as can best be achieved in the given situation and in the way that they best know how.

But this includes a junkie digging through trash for things to sell, a housewife poisoning her abusive husband, and a schizophrenic blowing up mailboxes to stop an international plot against her. It includes a recent widower staying in bed for two weeks. It certainly includes your exclusion of an entire neighborhood and its thousands of inhabitants from your care due to some harrowing experiences.

As I understand it, most economists, and certainly the ones that influence policy, are not really thinking of these things as “rational”. To them rational means “increasing your own wealth or exchanging your money in the most efficient and expedient way possible”. And that’s very good because this is the way that corporations and rich people that hire people to manage their money effectively operate. But it doesn’t really work for normal people in normal situations. Our lack of information about our surroundings and our incredibly wide array of emotional states doesnt leave a lot of room for rationality.

I won’t really expound on it because this is already so long, but having a single definition of rationality also excludes any possibility of having an informed multicultural viewpoint.

[m4nu3l]

The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country?

I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons:

1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again).

2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it.

3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.

[Nursie]

Far better.

Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are.

Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck.

People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general. Yes, I include myself. Most struggle with delayed gratification, let alone retirement planning.

A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate. Without one, well, you'll likely end up with Grafton, NH, writ large - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...

[Nursie]

Replying to myself - obviously this is within limits, the government should be just that, a governor. Centralised planning does not work.

[m4nu3l]

I'm not arguing for no Government. I'm arguing against Government intervention in the economy. I disagree on many points though (I have seen the Vox article before - I don't have much respect for Vox as it is very biased, so I tend to ignore it, just like The Guardian or Fox News).

"Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are". A Government is made of people. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "Isn't". You need to convince me that it "Isn't".

"Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck." I disagree. What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Yes, there are bad apples and stupid people, but you can't design a system that prevent people to do things because there are some bad apples. Look at the big tech, they are mostly investing voluntarily to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Of course if there is a market failure that really can be solved by the Government and that would otherwise kill us all, then I'm in favor of (indirect and market based) intervention.

"People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general." Disagree, people have different plans, some shorter term some longer term. Also why would they have short-term thinking in the market but long term thinking at the election?

"A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate" Very likely so. Although there are some ANCAP proposals I find interesting like the one form David Friedman, I'm not convinced it would work in practice. However my ideal Government doesn't balance anything (I don't think it actually can without making more harm than good). It instead define the rules and what constitute private property, but it doesn't decide how to allocate these resources. That would be left entirely to the market.

[Nursie]

Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble.

> What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire.

Because then they have the money and you don't. That's all there is to it. Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it.

Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt.

[throw93232]

People are rational, model works.

But you can not approximate complex system like human brain with couple of variables. There are not hundreds, but millions of biases.

Advanced epicycle models had dozens moving parts. JPL planetary ephemerides (modern equivalent in polynomials) have several millions of parameters and terabytes of equations.

[croes]

Invented gravity?

[jameshart]

Turns out, yes.

Gravity - some mystical force that attracts masses together - turns out to be a completely fictional thing. Mass curves spacetime, objects actually move in straight lines, and the fact you can explain the results of that as an 'attractive force' turns out to just be a convenient invention. The idea of summing how all that works in terms of a simple inverse square force is just an ingenious human observation and invention.

[dataflow]

They probably mean invented gravity as a formal concept, not as a physical phenomenon.

Like, say, the invention of the number 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0

[deckeraa]

Agreed.

Prior to Newton's conception of gravity as objects attracting one another, the primary model used was the Aristotelian one, in which things tended to go to the "zone" where they belong. Things composed of earth (like a rock) tended to sink towards the center of the earth, while things composed of fire or air tended to rise towards the sky.

[throw93232]

English is not my native language obviously.

[andrewflnr]

Not at all obvious, you did fine.

[smegsicle]

gravity is a notation for describing and predicting an arbitrary subset of natural processes

you might as well contest that he invented calculus

[gweinberg]

As opposed to discovered it? I think most people would say he discovered calculus rather than invented it.

[bergenty]

How do you do the double >>