[dinfinity]

> They are incredible compared to "no labs at all"

That is a nonsensically low bar. You basically destroy the entire scale by labeling the bare minimum as such.

> Mudflation aka hyperinflation aka situations where "the money printer goes brr too fast"

That is not what mudflation is at all.

>> They are toy universes.

> So are most experiments, fundamentally.

Nonsense. Most experiments are performed on actual real world stuff rather than an analogue of it: something like looking at how actual food affects actual humans rather than what happens when feeding virtual characters virtual apples. Limited or narrowly scoped real world experiments != toy universe experiments.

An inbetween category would be (human) drug experiments on mice, which are real world and where the results still don't generalize to humans often.

> Your examples seem easy to build toy universes for.

Yeah, no shit. My point was that those are horribly incomplete and don't generalize: "These games do not include many of the complexities of the real world and can thus provide few insights that generalize to the real world on a macroeconomic level."

Your examples are incredibly inadequate compared to the real world and have exactly 0 predictive power in said real world. In recent decades, the entire field of economy has been dumbfounded by the (lack of) effects of quantitative easing and the central interest rate on inflation in the USA and the EU. Maybe try telling them that they should look into the economy of Animal Crossing /s.

[WorldMaker]

> > They are incredible compared to "no labs at all"

> That is a nonsensically low bar. You basically destroy the entire scale by labeling the bare minimum as such.

Ah, yeah, I wasn't using it for "scale". "incredible" also often connotes "in ways that you wouldn't believe". Your long posts disputing me are somewhat validation that I used the right turn of phrase there.

[dinfinity]

> "incredible" also often connotes "in ways that you wouldn't believe". It does not. The English word you're looking for there is "surprisingly".

"This kid is good at hockey in ways you wouldn't believe."

Which of these sentences means the same as the above?

A. This kid is incredibly good at hockey.

B. This kid is surprisingly good at hockey.

> Your long posts disputing me are somewhat validation that I used the right turn of phrase there.

I think you've just invented a new fallacy.

[WorldMaker]

>> Mudflation aka hyperinflation aka situations where "the money printer goes brr too fast"

> That is not what mudflation is at all.

No, I think it is more that you are used to the more straight-jacketed post-EverQuest form of the term rather than the original circumstances that gave rise to the term in the first place. MUDs didn't have "expansion packs" or DLC. The original form of the term had more to do with infinitely printable currency ("grindable" drops from game spawned enemies) and its effects in trying to balance a larger economy. EverQuest did help to popularize the term in the way its expansions packs particularly badly handled that inflation, but those expansion pack balancing woes were never the cause of that inflation, only a symptom. The cause was (and has always been) "grinding" and "grinding mindset".

> Maybe try telling them that they should look into the economy of Animal Crossing

That is exactly what I'm trying to do. We have some good science from videogames but not enough of it. Dismissing videogame economies as "toy universes" that don't matter doesn't help science. Animal Crossing has inadvertently demonstrated some of the symptoms of that economic question. Imagine if a game was designed to intentionally simulate that as a lab experiment.

I don't think we're going to agree on that, but I think on the spectrum of "macroeconomics isn't a science because it has no laboratories and isn't reproducible in experiments" to "macroeconomics is a science but its laboratories are videogames and we have under studied them and especially aren't building enough reproducible studies", I am happy to be on the side of it that sees hope in better macroeconomic science even if it isn't currently taken seriously enough.

[dinfinity]

1. The definitions simply disagree with you:

"Hyperinflation is a very high and typically accelerating inflation."

"Mudflation is a term for the type of inflation found in MUDs (Multi User Dungeon) games. MMORPGs, these days. It's caused by fluctuations in the game economy, caused by player exploits or poorly designed patches. Mudflation almost always kicks in after a major patch or an expansion, when new, better quality items are added to the game economy. These generally have the effect of greatly lowering the value of all pre-existing items."

2.

> Dismissing videogame economies as "toy universes" that don't matter doesn't help science.

Straw man. I never said they did not matter, nor did I say that research of them isn't useful. I said that research is severely limited due to the lack of complexity and you have provided nothing to disprove that.

I would argue that your way of communicating about this is actually a bit of evidence that this kind of research is probably going to be detrimental to policy making: Overestimating the value and use of such research is exactly the same thing that happens with traditional macroeconomic research, with policy makers and the general public treating the theories and hypotheses like laws of nature.