Re: Where to now?

On 11/20/2012 4:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>> BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved
> banking and monetary issues. One
>> of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what
> they are talking about can say >it it plain English.
>
> Well, that just makes you as suspect as the non-financial faculty of HBS
> :-)  Don't you know that those who are educated in a subject are very
> suspect, just look at all the biologists who promegate that leftist
> propaganda: evolution.  Actually, it's sad that folks like Mario Rubio have
> to bow to creationists by likened teaching anything that makes what's taught
> at home look foolish" to Castro having kids spy on their parents.
It doesn't make my ideas any better than anyone else's, I am quite 
aware. I got annoyed by Mr. Williams condescending attitude. Some of the 
biggest idiots I ever met had PhDs. When I was Faculty Development 
Officer I actually had a Physics prof seriously argue that since the 
software would calculate GPAs to 4 decimal places that we should submit 
grades accurate to 4 decimal places.

The problem I have with a lot of what passes for economic commentary 
these days is that it is evidence-free. It is one thing to speculate 
before you have done the experiment, indeed it is almost mandatory to do 
so if you want to know where to experiment. But when the experiment has 
been done, repeatedly, and always gives the same result, acting as if 
none of that ever happened is just plain wrong. And I note that the 
Republicans are at it again with the nonsense that somehow cutting tax 
rates will increase revenue. That has been tried, repeatedly, and it 
just doesn't work that way. So at this point I can only conclude that 
the Republicans are congenital liars.

> On a more serious note.  I don't know anyone who can explain electroweak
> theory in plain English and be accurate.  I've tried for years to explain
> parts of QM as clearly and simply as possible, and find myself going over
> the heads of folks.  It's frustrating.
>
Yeah, that can be tough. As Feynman pointed out, the problem is that the 
universe is absurd, and we are not wired to work with absurdity. But 
economics is not that hard. Most of the difficulty comes from people who 
are trying to twist things to fit their interests. Offhand, I cannot 
imagine too many people who have a personal stake in how QM works. But 
tax policy affects everyone's wallet.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien
[email protected]
A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw.