From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:41:08 GMT
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec29.034309.17334@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.163220.15747@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>>[scenario deleted]
>>>I'm keeping my spreadsheet handy and my hand near the panic
>>>button.
>>
>>This kind of calculations is really scary:
>
>The previous post required proof that growth
>alone wouldn't solve the debt problem.  The scenario indicated
>that (ignoring off-budget items), growth alone may just barely
>do the job.  However, I made explicit note of the parameters
>of the scenario and the omission of unfunded liabilities
>(and other off-budget items).  You did not reply to the
>request for proof; at least I demonstrated that there
>are reasons to not be sanguine.

I didn't mean to say your analysis is invalid.  I meant to say that discussing
narrow escape scenarios when everything is about to collapse and when there's
still time to save ourselves in a more certain fashion is a little irrelevant.

>>  It's impossible to do a complete, accurate
>>  and dependable analysis of anything in economics, which tells you
>>  something about the "scientific" nature of economics and
>>  why relying on calculations like these to *live on the edge* is
>>  complete nonsense.
>
>I did not suggest that anyone do any such thing.

However, analysis of your kind is what permits politicians to suit campaigns
to their private agendas.  It is because economists focus on nitpicking and
forget the big picture and can never agree with each other that politicians
can always find some analysis that suits their private needs.

>>
>>- Living on the edge till 1999 may be possible (not likely), but how close
>>  to the edge are we after that?  How long will it be until we can handle
>>  an emergency without getting close to bankruptcy again????
>>
>>My entire message has been: let's not risk our future by playing with
>>this stuff.  Don't do speculative analysis.  
>
>Any analysis of possible outcomes is speculative.

So?

>>Be proactive.  Prevent the
>>crisis from happening in the first place.  Stay far from fiscal limits.
>
>You have failed to provide your critics with a set of criteria
>by which to determine what those fiscal limits may be, or
>how far away the United States should stay.

My entire message has been: when you can't do dependable analyses of
outcomes, be conservative.  Hence balance the budget.  This is the
philosophical underpinning of all sciences and engineering.  Unfortunately,
economics tends to ignore it.

>>Balance the budget.
>
>Whether or not a balanced budget is appropriate is a matter for
>debate.

Sure, let's debate til our boat sinks.

>>The proper role of economics, in the first place, should have been to tell
>>society to be conservative because it can only reliably do steady-state and
>>not dynamic analysis.  But no, you guys choose to stay in your mathematically
>                                ^^^^^^^^
>I find this offensive.

It was not meant to be friendly.  I'm sick and tired of social "scientists"
acting superficially like real scientists and ignoring basic common sense
and screwing things up for everybody!

>>rigorous but nonsensible world of models based on unrealistic assumptions
>
>Which of my assumptions were unrealistic?  By leaving
>aside unfunded liabilities, I implied that they may not be met.

Which assumptions are unrealistic?  See the earlier part of my posting.

>>and ignore to warn the public of this MAJOR PROBLEM in our economy!
>
>It is not my patriotic duty to inform the public of the United
>States of problems in the United States economy, except insofar
>as it impinges upon my country.
>
>However, in sci.econ, misc.invest, and alt.politics.economics, I
>have chosen to sound cautionary notes.  In can.politics, I have
>made similar noises about the Canadian situation.

Most of my comments were not directed at any individual but at economists in
this country as a whole.  I simply found in your posting an example of
the absurdity that economists indulge in.