(FB 1543603044 Timestamp)
ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT?
Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise).
At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity.
If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians.
But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions.
So, it’s not an either or proposition.
Bias Confirmation in History,
Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and;
Cherry Picking in Economics.
Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.