Orange Donald has now demonstrated what we all knew all along – economics is a pretend science; no one knows what’s going to happen next.
The so-called economists all tell us it’s too early to predict, while keeping a straight face. What they’re not saying is that economics is just the 21st century equivalent of consulting the entrails of a newly slaughtered goat.
Charlatans, the lot of them.
Also Economists will never make a decision.
‘We are just here to advise” is the constant mantra.
‘
See also: HR…
@fitterstoke hold on there….i worked in HR and kept my Companies out of the law courts and tribunals.
Apologies, no offence intended: speaking strictly from personal experience – therefore not, perhaps, universal.
Did you “decide” rather than “advise”, as per Wheaty’s observation on economists?
@fitterstoke I was fortunate to work for some decent Companies where I was empowered to say No. Followed by “ and if you insist on this course of action then the Company will not defend you against any future legal action”
Of course these exciting times were nowhere near as frequent as “have you finished your annual appraisals yet?”
In my fairly extensive experience of dealing with HR people, good ones are worth their weight in gold and bad ones clog up the system and are worse than not having one at all
This is what I was going to say. But Twang said it first.
I might also add that similar things could be said about most categories of office worker.
True but HR have powerful blocking capacity if they choose to use it. “That will require 3 months consultation…” etc.
I’d venture most categories of worker from my distant experience of retail. And dealing with suppliers.
This was my professional experience as well.
My advice to my business managers was slightly blunter,
Alternatively, don’t study economics and then believe everything Bonespurs tells you. See where that gets you.
Agreed. I’m not surprised at all that he’s doing this. He was clearly certifiable during the election and they voted for him anyway.
Bonespurs?
I believe Donald ‘fight, fight,fight!’ Trump avoided serving his country in Vietnam thanks to a diagnosis of bone spurs in his feet.
If memory serves, they were the worst bone spurs the doctor had ever seen, truly incredible, the doctor was amazed he could walk at all.
I see. Strange to use as a nickname though
Surely it’s not dissimilar to trump’s use of nicknames pick a weak point* and use it.
I saw the ‘tartrazine toddler’ used yesterday which I rather like.
* not that I think the bonespurs excuse is true.
I will stick with “orange cunt”
That’s more snappy. Much easier to type than “adjudicated rapist, draft dodger, quadruple bankrupt and serial adulterer”
A.K.A.ARDDQBASA
Let alone play golf every week.
I saw clip of him taking a swing at a ball recently – he looked like someone angrily trying to dig a trench.
You’d think he’d be quite good at it by now, with all that practice
To be fair to Economists, most of them said what is happening would happen.
Ree Smug said they are all “star gazers and soothsayers”. Twat.
America once had a political group called the Know-Nothings who politicised poor WASPs. Sounds familiar: Donald Skidmark is just the loudmouth in the US golf club and knows nothing other than his own ego. He’s a cunt’s cunt, and proud of it. That the nation and government have fallen to him says an awful lot about how fragile democracy is, and how weak the arguments are for it.
Democracy is fragile because no nation/state has ever been allowed to be truly democratic.
It’s an interesting philosophical point. I wonder if true democracy is actually possible. Perhaps people individually and in social groups are too selfish for it to work.
I’m very proud of my B in Honours Economics in the Leaving Cert 1983. First in my school to get it. There’s probably a plaque!
It has helped me understand stuff in the news that I’d otherwise be unable to fathom. However I think any government pursuing any policy can find an economist to explain why it’s not only the best course of action but also the only sane option – see austerity. David McWilliams the Irish economist has never been attached to any political party or government (AFAIK) and I find his stuff both informative and easier to understand than most econobabble in the media.
I have a BSc in Economics and 35 years in HR. Cancelled twice in one thread.
I did a lot of economics as part of my degree and fairly quickly you realise there isn’t an answer, there are many theories depending on a huge number of variables, some more reliable than others.
I did one module (10 lectures of 45 mins each) in my engineering degree. I managed to avoid the subject in my finals by answering a different question (something to do with feedback loops, probably). I still have the coursebook on the shelf – summary: it’s really complicated with too many variables, do something else instead.
To be fair it’s probably over off the subjects I studied which had been slightly more useful than others. I’m looking at you, algebra.
I did a single piece of Trigonometry last year, I’ve probably used trig around 10 times since I left school and now Google will do it for you.
Over off? One of. ..
Hold on a minute, it was all based on extensive analysis – they had an equation with Greek characters in in, so it must be proper maths.
In fairness, the same can be said of many disciplines, I.e. they are very inexact sciences. Psychology is a classic, with much based on behavioural observation and extrapolation. Likewise even in medicine, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent, but where people are often still making educated guesses as to what will happen or is going on.
I used to be responsible for the electronics on disk drives and when we couldn’t determine the issue, I would claim to my boss that it was due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as the feature size of the chips was now so small, they were exhibiting quantum behaviour. Strangely, he never believed me…..
I like the fact that the Don has made Economics so much easier to understand. Take a couple of numbers (made up ones can be substituted if preferred) divide by 2 and Bobs your uncle ( or possibly not)
As pointed out here, economic predictions involve lots of variables …. and they’re often related to human behaviour, which is often quite irrational.
I have an honours degree in economics.
Problem one it is largely behavioural and behaviour changes.
Problem two is that the conclusions necessarily rely on a priori assumptions and these don’t always hold.
I’ll echo Bamber above in praise for David McWilliams. I’ve said it before and I’ll probably say it again – his podcast with his childhood friend John Davis (the Mayo to his Kermode) is definitely worth your time. “To understand economics, you have to understand human nature” is the tagline, and human nature, with plenty of hoarse old anecdotes (rarely repetitive, unlike James O’Brien) is very much the focus of the thematic conversations. Very well-connected, not least thanks to the annual Kilkenomics Comedy and Economic Festival, which seems to attract lots of politics and economics ‘rock stars’, who then appear on his podcast.
The most recent episode looks at the tariffs situation and interviews Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic editor who got added to the Huthi attack signal group by mistake. The general summary is of the lack of seriousness of the Trump administration, whether in economics or in defence matters, that the tariffs could have been worse, and in any case will probably be quietly negotiated down later.
As in any subject, there are sensible voices to listen to, then there are people like Patrick Minford.
Sounds interesting ta.
C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ATP energy
That’s science.
V=IR
That’s science.
V=u+at
That’s science
𝛥𝐸 = 𝑚𝑐𝛥𝜃
That’s science.
pH = –log [H ]
That’s science.
E=mc²
That’s science.
GDP = C + G + I + NX
That isn’t science. That’s an agreed definition.
CS = (½) x Qd x ΔP
That isn’t science. That’s saying abundant stuff is usually cheaper.
Just saying.
😉
Trump + Vance + Musk = Bunch of Cunts
That’s science.
Fact.
Is ‘bunch’ the collective noun for more than one See You Next Tuesdays? I’d have thought it had one too many letters.
Isn’t it wunch, as in a wunch of bankers?
A gusset?
Was that Peter Gabriel’s original draft lyric for Suppers Ready?
3 people marooned on an island. Only a can of beans to eat and no tools.
The labourer says “let’s get a big rock and smash it open”.
The scientist says “let’s sit it in salt water and as it corrodes the tin will weaken allowing us to prise it open”.
The economist starts … “now assume we have a can opener”.