It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Data is noise. It is the interpretation of data that has importance. If you can tell me why the data in question is important, I will consider reading it. Pointing to random bits of data is an unproductive exercise, the purpose is to see relationships. This is where we diverge, not in as you put it me trying to impose. there is a gap or disconnection in what you post and what you cite. If you can fill in this gap, I might be able to understand your points.

 

This ^^^ paragraph is nothing more than buzzword abuse.
Data is not noise. Data can be noisy, and signal can be hard to find in noisy data. But your interpretation-centric approach is shitty science. Interpretation is only relevant where the data have nothing unequivocal to say. Then again, armchair economists like yourself would have nothing to say if they just stuck to the information contained in the data.

I also just want to point out that this post by Ace explains so much. In it, he essentially reduces facts (i.e. data) to the role of inconvenient noise while enshrining spin (i.e. interpretation) as the primary vehicle of relevance. Everything is clear now.

 

it's really quite obvious, particularly if you don't restrict yourself to the us press nattering on in its overwhelmingly narcissistic manner about us affairs, that the political logic behind austerity is under significant assault. the situation in the e.u. is interesting in this regard, particularly now that the socialists in france (who are in power). over the last week, there's been attempts from france to paint merkel and some of the northern eu countries as politically isolated and stubbornly committed to a policy logic that's wreaking havoc with the e.u. in general.

such conceptual basis as there has been for austerity as a rational response to economic crisis has also been coming rapidly undone (in a way that almost makes one believe in zeitgeist or something). what holds that logic in place is, seemingly, the ideological and cognitive rigidity of the neo-liberal set---which wouldn't matter except for the unfortunate fact that many of these buffoons are still in power, be it in elected or appointed positions.

even in this little microcosm of tfp, it should be possible to discuss the simple fact that neo-liberal socio-economic policy logic is based on assumptions that fly in the fact of historical experience, that are problematic conceptually at best and arbitrary at worst, and that have not and will not produce the kinds of results claimed for years and years by its proponents. the way to make these arguments is by appeal to some kind of, you know, information about the external world. and if, as is the case seemingly with ace, appeal to information about the external world is anxiety producing in the way that referring to objects that would require use of the letter E are in georges perec's "a void" (a fabulous book, btw...and not one letter E either in the original or in the translation...but, you might ask, how is that possible in the translation if the translation is supposed to say the same sort of things as the original? well...) then there's no point in discussion because none is possible.

 

The above sounds very academic. Can you explain or elaborate on how and when data may not have anything to "say". Isn't it by definition that "data" is saying something? There is data that is relevant and data that is not relevant. All data exists on an equal basis, filtering the data is what gives it importance. Understanding the data and its relationship with other pieces of data gives the data value. Are you actually disagreeing or are you making some other point.

Me being an "armchair" economist does not stop or hinder my ability to apply my knowledge and experience to interpreting data. "Armchair" economist or not I use economic data, interpret that data and I make financial decisions. Decisions that have impact beyond me as an individual.

As is often the case here, we communicate on different levels. It appears your view of what I wrote is superficial.
--- merged: May 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM ---

Actually it is not. Given a preconceived notion it is very easy to pick data points to support that preconceived notion. What I often do is present my preconceived notions (am I the only one who has them?) I explain them, I attempt to justify them, I attempt to defend them, I listen to alternative views and I make adjustments to my notions. Just because you lack the ability to persuade me doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. The responses to my preconceived notions are often weak and are not logical. Far to frequently many here refuse to answer very simple questions or will not elaborate on their positions when asked. But I know, it is always my problem. I got it!
--- merged: May 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM ---

1) what assumptions are you talking about?
2) what is a neo-liberal?

 

ace, please.
neo-liberalism is the name used in most of the rest of the world for the markety-market nonsense that you subscribe to with tedious metaphysically-oriented rigidity.
things become circular from there.
you like circular.
i have other things to do.

 

Sounds like cherry-picking data.

Or even more disingenuous, creating imaginary families A and B and companies, X, Y and Z and imposing your self-selected "data" to these imaginary entities and suggesting they represent anything more than your imagination.

 

Please make sense! Of course one picks data points. And in order to start a process one has to know (preconceived) the type of data they are looking for. Or are you the type of guy that walks out your door and given some type of random focus on random bits of data you formulate coherent views? Isn't it all "cherry picking"?

Perhaps what you really mean is when a person ignores data that contradicts a point of view. And here you confuse questioning the data with ignoring it.

 

Call if what like, Ace. Any economics professor would fail you on your cherry-picked posts for ignoring equally pertinent data....or your imaginary people/companies or your anecdotes about Uncle Joe or neighbor Bubba.

 

"markety-markety" - is that a technical term?

Of course, I am wasting your time. If you have to explain what you mean, I must be too dumb to understand?!? Where, how did you develop this outlook?
--- merged: May 1, 2013 at 12:45 PM ---

Be specific. There have been times when I "cherry pick" and I might tell you why if asked. Other times I don't.

I have a bachelors degree with an economics major. Within my major I got mostly A's from professors. So, I followed their rules and regurgitated their points of view, then I got into the real world and found there is a big difference between theory and practical application.

 

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The essence of neoliberalism - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

 

No.

Have you ever reviewed research on how people make decisions? Do you believe your process of making decisions is unique? Do you believe, based on what you know my process is unique? In context of the research what is the material significance of the concept of "cherry picking"?

In a sales scenario how soon will a decision maker typically make a decision during the sales presentation? How soon relative to the presentation of all the "data"? Is the decision maker "cherry picking" or picking data points that allow...? Is the inference that the decision maker is making poor decisions? Should this be the basis to measure the decision? If you are making the pitch wouldn't you want to know and guide your sales presentation to support the decision makers preconceived notions? Would you pretend the decision maker won't have preconceive notions? Realizing the decision maker may "cherry pick" data points, wouldn't you want insight into the data likely to be "cherry picked"? Or, would you pretend it is not important? would you recognize the value of the decision maker's time and filter the noisy data for his/her benefit?

Have you ever given these things much thought before your superficial response to my posts here?
--- merged: May 1, 2013 at 5:34 PM ---

From the first citation:

Everyone is critical of some legislative market reform at some point.

Perhaps you can tell us how you use the term. How does your view of neoliberal differ from neoclassical?

Can you give an example of who you think is neoliberal? who is not neoliberal?

My view of your writing on this subject is that whenever someone is at odds with your view of economic policy they get the neoliberal label - and the "markety-markety" blabber. One day it is the dog, the next it is the flea on the dog, the third day it is both... Then if questioned we get your, "oh, I don't have time for this line". Then we get a few obscure links that tell us nothing. Not to mention the Ace is this, Ace is that b.s. - you can do better.
--- merged: May 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM ---

Is the past prologue? Can you always depend on observable data and results? I would say no. Are there dangers in this process? I would say yes. How do you answer? Given your answer how do you address the potential consequences that may result from this process?

 

If that is your take, you have my sympathy and never my business.

We communicate on different planes.

No. However, I have trained my mind to focus on what is important - filtering the noise! Are you telling me you do not understand this simple concept and its application in all walks of life both for humans and animals?

My perception is that you are purposefully being argumentative.

 

It's only academic in that working effectively with data requires some amount of learning. People who rely on their interpretations tend to see in the data whatever they want to see.

I never mentioned meaningless data. I did mention that data sometime don't have anything unequivocal to say. This is another way of saying that there is too much noise.

But then again, I know what constitutes data and what it means to analyze that data. I'm not entirely sure that we're working with the same definition here.

I know scientists like you. They tend to know what the data should say before they've even looked at it. On the occasion that the data don't confirm their beliefs, they question the data, they question the analysis, they want to change the analysis in the hopes that turning their head sideways and squinting will help the data conform to their ideas of how the data ought to behave. They seem to rarely question their beliefs.

I would argue that between our perspectives, the superficiality is heavily weighted towards yours.

 

Continued sales analogy:

You are an expert on your product/service it has 10,000 known benefits and 3 known issues - initial cost, implementation obstacles and early adopter risks . Within 5 minutes of your presentation I say I understand the benefits, however I need to understand the benefits in relationship to initial cost, implementation or transition issues and the risks of being an early adopter - and you do what?

Then after 2 hours I say, yes I am sold on your product/service, but - I need to make a 10 minute presentation to the Board to get their buy-in. One member is a former engineer and knows the underlying technology better than you, one guy will be overly concerned over initial costs, and two will love the idea of being early adopters, help me put together a 10 minute presentation - and you do what?

Next my company is having an executive conference and I need to put together a 45 minute presentation to get their buy-in. They all resist change and won't want to commit resources for training and the transition - and you do what?

Next I have to train a team of trainer so they can go out and train supervisors and staff - and you do what?

I will tell you what you do. You "cherry pick" the hell out of the data and customize the presentation to meet the needs of your audience! You are not going to be dishonest, you don't lack integrity, you are not silver tongued. You deal with the real world, you play the cards you are dealt to get the job done! Your theoretical views sound great in text books.
--- merged: May 2, 2013 at 7:40 AM ---

It is a real issue for me.

It is not about flawed data or observation it is about a dynamic environment with changes in the way variables interact.

I think the point is that data points can transition from being "noise" to being useful and potentially transition back to being "noise". When do you know that? When do you know it relative to others? When you ignore the "noise" while others are not what are the risks, what are the benefits? Are you "cherry picking"?

How do you define trolling? If I disagree is that trolling? If I respond to a question is that trolling? If I defend my position is that trolling? Yes, you have mentioned this before and I still don;t know what you mean.
--- merged: May 2, 2013 at 7:56 AM ---

True. I am guessing your version of this truth differs from mine. For example a young lion learning to hunt has to learn to interpret data inputs - but this is not some formal higher education, degreed type learning as is the case with most things.

A person's brain functions as a filter. Perceptions can be prone to error. I know this, I wonder if others commenting here know this. I know I have biases and perception weaknesses. I have been the only one here that I know of that has ever admitted this. I know I "cherry pick" on occasion and I know when and why I do it. Do you?

I question and challenge my beliefs all the time. I state my beliefs here, a hostile environment for my beliefs, and I engage in exchanges based on my beliefs. the issue is that, and it is sad, when some get push back they find that difficult. Just as I am engaging you, with the initial premise that "data is noise" be it resolved, to me that is the start of debate. I would love to see someone engage until the end and help me see things in a different light. Up to this point it has not happened - responses have been superficial and trivial - stated in a condescending manner. "sounds like cherry picking"...what does that mean? Of course people pick the "cherry" that is best. Or, I would have "integrity" - implying if you meet the needs of your audience one lacks integrity???? where does this come from?



I would argue that between our perspectives, the superficiality is heavily weighted towards yours.[/quote]