Posted: May 19, 2018 8:16 pm
by Xerographica
Thommo wrote:"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. "
--Evan Esar

"Forecasting is the art of saying what will happen, and then explaining why it didn't! "
--Anonymous

" It is often said there are two types of forecasts ... lucky or wrong!!!! "

“the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”
--Ezra Solomon

All we can really learn from the assertion that rational agents with common knowledge cannot engage in conflict is either that (a) real world agents are not "rational agents", (b) the common knowledge criteria is not met, or (c) the argument that led to the assertion is wrong.

Economists aren't equally effective. Adam Smith was the most effective economist. He supported representation for Americans...

Towards the declension of the Roman republic, the allies of Rome, who had borne the principal burden of defending the state and extending the empire, demanded to be admitted to all the privileges of Roman citizens. Upon being refused, the social war broke out. During the course of that war, Rome granted those privileges to the greater part of them one by one, and in proportion as they detached themselves from the general confederacy. The parliament of Great Britain insists upon taxing the colonies; and they refuse to be taxed by a Parliament in which they are not represented. If to each colony, which should detach itself from the general confederacy, Great Britain should allow such a number of representatives as suited the proportion of what is contributed to the public revenue of the empire, in consequence of its being subjected to the same taxes, and in compensation admitted to the same freedom of trade with its fellow-subjects at home; the number of its representatives to be augmented as the proportion of its contribution might afterwards augment; a new method of acquiring importance, a new and more dazzling object of ambition would be presented to the leading men of each colony. Instead of piddling for the little prizes which are to be found in what may be called the paltry raffle of colony faction; they might then hope, from the presumption which men naturally have in their own ability and good fortune, to draw some of the great prizes which sometimes come from the wheel of the great state lottery of British polities. Unless this or some other method is fallen upon, and there seems to be none more obvious than this, of preserving the importance and of gratifying the ambition of the leading men of America, it is not very probable that they will ever voluntarily submit to us; and we ought to consider that the blood which must be shed in forcing them to do so is, every drop of it, blood either of those who are, or of those whom we wish to have for our fellow-citizens. They are very weak who flatter themselves that, in the state to which things have come, our colonies will be easily conquered by force alone. The persons who now govern the resolutions of what they call their continental congress, feel in themselves at this moment a degree of importance which, perhaps, the greatest subjects in Europe scarce feel. From shopkeepers, tradesmen, and attornies, they are become statesmen and legislators, and are employed in contriving a new form of government for an extensive empire, which, they flatter themselves, will become, and which, indeed, seems very likely to become, one of the greatest and most formidable that ever was in the world. Five hundred different people, perhaps, who in different ways act immediately under the continental congress; and five hundred thousand, perhaps, who act under those five hundred, all feel in the same manner a proportionable rise in their own importance. Almost every individual of the governing party in America fills, at present in his own fancy, a station superior, not only to what he had ever filled before, but to what he had ever expected to fill; and unless some new object of ambition is presented either to him or to his leaders, if he has the ordinary spirit of a man, he will die in defence of that station. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

If the British government had heeded Smith's council, then right now I'd be sipping tea and watching cricket on BBC. You would be watching the members of British parliament heckle each other... but they wouldn't be in England...

Such has hitherto been the rapid progress of that country in wealth, population, and improvement, that in the course of little more than a century, perhaps, the produce of American might exceed that of British taxation. The seat of the empire would then naturally remove itself to that part of the empire which contributed most to the general defence and support of the whole. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Obviously Smith correctly predicted that America's revenue would exceed England's revenue. I'm not sure how close his estimate of a century was.

Smith also correctly predicted what would happen if church and state were separated...

But if politics had never called in the aid of religion, had the conquering party never adopted the tenets of one sect more than those of another when it had gained the victory, it would probably have dealt equally and impartially with all the different sects, and have allowed every man to choose his own priest and his own religion as he thought proper. There would in this case, no doubt have been a great multitude of religious sects. Almost every different congregation might probably have made a little sect by itself, or have entertained some peculiar tenets of its own. Each teacher would no doubt have felt himself under the necessity of making the utmost exertion and of using every art both to preserve and to increase the number of his disciples. But as every other teacher would have felt himself under the same necessity, the success of no one teacher, or sect of teachers, could have been very great. The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquility. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which is so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects whose tenets, being supported by the civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of extensive kingdoms and empires, and who therefore see nothing round them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Smith understood the impact that consumer choice has on the supply of things. He understood that consumer choice would greatly facilitate the diversification, and hence evolution, of religions.

It really wasn't Smith's job as an economist to predict Mormonism... it was his job to understand the general consequences of consumer choice. It was his job to understand what a difference consumer choice makes.

Right now Netflix doesn't have consumer choice. What difference would it make if it did? What difference would it make if subscribers could use their own fees to help rank the content? It's not the job of economists to predict that there would be a huge spike in shows about traveling... it's their job to predict that the supply would far more accurately reflect the demand. Obviously, and unfortunately, most economists aren't doing their job. They aren't standing on Smith's shoulders.