Adding prices into macro. Why do I have the sense neoclassicals are in for even more pain? :ablobcatpopcorn:
"The original Neoclassical (and Austrian) explanation for inflation is that it is caused by "too much money chasing too few goods", with government money creation being the culprit, .."
"A fundamental requirement for realistic economics is to abandon the 19th century (in)convenience of assuming equilibrium, and to instead model the economy as a dynamic (and evolving) system. This raises the question of how to treat time itself, and the appalling pun in the title of this chapter highlights the fact that economic modellers in general, ... have habitually treated time as a discrete rather than a continuous ..."
@GhostOnTheHalfShell
This speaks to me as someone who once worked in weather modelling. Garbage in, garbage out is one thing. But what if your model itself is garbage? With all due respect to economic modellers. I know this ain't a walk in the park.
Streaming the 25th. Mark your calendars. Book mark and boost, if you might. All of academia needs to know what kind of deadly dross neoclassical economics is legitimatizing.
climate change is more than the sum of its extreme weather parts. Sure enough the FT publishes an article reports on the parts (link in video comments. Note that its paywalled)
Singularity And You | ChatGPT and digital existence.
10 min video
What’s worse beyond all the crap journaled on Mastodon about chatGPT and the abuse platforms engage in, is the BBC reports an explosion of AI generated disinformation youtube posts that threaten to drown out accurate channels. I expect these are being promoted by paying YT.
I want to emphasize, people need to be the algorithm.
Nordhaus is an economist who wrote papers in the 80s to trivialize the consequence of climate change. He is allied with other individuals that worked to spread corporate disinformation on tobacco, asbestos, CFCs and acid rain. His papers provided policy legitimatization to ignore climate change. Koch is more widely known for his own activities and has sponsored science denial. The result is climate crisis.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell
I’ve skimmed half of his Noble Prize acceptance speech. His climate change work began in the 1970s but his significant work was in the 1990s.
The lecture begins with sound economics theory (diseconomies and public goods). It’s the assumption that throwing math at social science = great predictions that sets my teeth on edge (not just here). There’s a reason the field began as philosophy.