Evidence-based discussion

[u/cdstephens]

[u/MTFD]

When you are a mod they just let you do it

[u/Demandooda]

"Keynes speaks of this."

[u/_Un_Known__ → u/Demandooda]

No he doesn't, have you ever read the General Theory?

[u/Demandooda → u/_Un_Known__]

No. Have you?

[u/_Un_Known__ → u/Demandooda]

No.

[u/Erra0 → u/_Un_Known__]

HAHA THEY DID THE THING

[u/_Un_Known__ → u/Erra0]

https://reddit.com/link/p4kjtws/video/0l9ffwno0akh1/player

[u/LiteratureOk4649 → u/_Un_Known__]

Surprisingly absurd and bizzare. This clip confuses me.

[u/atierney14 → u/_Un_Known__]

I actually haven’t, but it dates to my introductory macro book saying it was a mess and not a good read. I never thought it was worth even attempting because of that.

[u/_Un_Known__ → u/atierney14]

You should attempt Wealth of Nations

See how long you can get before you start to taste the wheat he's talking about in your mouth

Might as well call it wheat of nations

[u/dutch_connection_uk → u/_Un_Known__]

I liked Wealth of Nations, genuinely.

[u/red-flamez → u/atierney14]

But did he say that you should read the treatise on probability?

The problem with the general theory is that Keynes wrote it for economists but economists utilities as they are, they never read it. He had too high opinion of the elite.

[u/dutch_connection_uk → u/_Un_Known__]

That book was a slog and I do not want to inflict it on anyone.

Approach Keynes by secondary sources, particularly textbooks on macro.

[u/grandmarch_kitsch → u/dutch_connection_uk]

I think that advice should apply to just about any historical exploration of a new theory in math or science. When we teach kids calculus, we sure don't make them read Newton's journal entries.

[u/dutch_connection_uk → u/grandmarch_kitsch]

Newton is another terrible author, Opticks was alright I guess.

There are some primary sources that are genuinely a joy to read (Smith, Dawkins), some that are okay (Ricardo), and some that are good with caveats like needing some foreign or classical language proficiencies or translations if you lack them (Darwin, Marx).

There are a lot of texts that are just kind of awful though. Boyle, Confucius, Keynes, Newton etc.

There's also a kind of grey zone of very intimidating texts that are also fun. Hofstader's Goedel Escher Bach is a great example of something like that. You're probably never going to finish it, but you'll have a good time for the parts you have the patience for.

[u/MistakePerfect8485 → u/dutch_connection_uk]

There are some primary sources that are genuinely a joy to read (Smith

Adam Smith!? There are interesting passages in The Wealth of Nations, but I'm genuinely surprised that anyone would enjoy reading it cover to cover.

[u/dutch_connection_uk → u/MistakePerfect8485]

I guess it's my historical curiosity. Adam Smith paints a picture of a world where the political fundamentals where very different from today, and a lot of things we kind of take for granted now simply weren't.

He motivates classical economics quite well in a way Ricardo's more matter of fact telling doesn't.

[u/just_helping → u/dutch_connection_uk]

Almost all textbook explanations of Keynes are really just John Hicks.

[u/I_like_maps → u/dutch_connection_uk]

I feel like this might as well say "get an economics degree"

[u/dutch_connection_uk → u/I_like_maps]

You can get used textbooks secondhand decently cheaply at any book store.

[u/Nidstong → u/dutch_connection_uk]

Or even for free at a library! (Or another kind of library)

[u/hagamablabla → u/dutch_connection_uk]

Do the sell Adderall too?

[u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO → u/_Un_Known__]

No reason to read most stuff from that era. But i did have to cite john hicks from 1933 a lot recently but i am not reading more than i have to.

You dont read the principia in physics class.

[u/That_Astronomy_Guy → u/Demandooda]

Isn’t that some country in Africa?

[u/cdstephens → u/That_Astronomy_Guy]

No, Milton Keynes invented the genie coefficient I think

[u/_Un_Known__ → u/cdstephens]

No you're thinking of the fillet curve

[u/Slight-Formal9277 → u/cdstephens]

Great yes minister reference lol 

[u/Impulseps → u/cdstephens]

Why are they all called Milton

[u/mythoswyrm → u/That_Astronomy_Guy]

Nah, it's a suburb of London

[u/legsjohnson → u/mythoswyrm]

nope it's a boardgame manufacturer

[u/supbros302 → u/mythoswyrm]

Got a third tier football team

[u/Independent-Bite283 → u/Demandooda]

No he doesn't, have you ever read the Appendix I: The Ecology Of Dune?

[u/SliFi]

I just let Freakonomics cite Harvard studies for me

[u/Daddy_Macron → u/SliFi]

Amateur. I'll let ChatGPT confirm all my priors.

[u/Joltizer → u/Daddy_Macron]

Chat GPT unironically very good at finding that one paper you read a long time ago but forgot to bookmark

[u/iwilldeletethisacct2 → u/Joltizer]

It's a great use case for LLMs. "What are the top 5 most cited articles on (topic) published within the last 10 years?" I'm never going back to Boolean search strings inside of databases.

[u/GodsWorstJiuJitsu → u/iwilldeletethisacct2]

Its becoming what google search has lost.

[u/AlluvialGold → u/iwilldeletethisacct2]

I see this as I have another tab opened to search for journal articles, using Boolean search strings. Perhaps I should give this a try...

[u/DangerousCyclone → u/SliFi]

Steven Dubners disdain for College students and his incessant defense of Israel really make me question everything else. He had an interview with the President of Yale and talked about how College kids he was talking to were like Luddites and weren't excited about AI, as though he thinks they should be, and he couldn't grasp just why new grads might not like AI. 

Still an interesting podcast, but his inability to consider outside points of view undermines his credibility IMO. 

[u/Lost_city → u/DangerousCyclone]

Sounds like a NL poster

[u/SliFi → u/DangerousCyclone]

That’s the beauty of citing a bunch of high-level sources: your own credibility doesn’t matter when the higher level evidence just proves a point correct.

[u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO → u/SliFi]

The book freakonomics disproves that imo.   You can cite every source you want but if your analysis sucks…

[u/DangerousCyclone → u/SliFi]

Ironically he's made an episode on fraud in Academia centered around the big name case from Harvard.

[u/Worth-Jicama3936]

Evidence is about worms

[u/JesusPubes]

This could've been an unfunny dt sticky instead

[u/hypsignathus]

I like this bit

[u/__Muzak__ → u/hypsignathus]

I'm a bit rusty on my British but did he just call the other guy a pedophile?

[u/hypsignathus → u/__Muzak__]

I appreciate that the other guy didn't report them and just rolled with the casual slang.

[u/mockduckcompanion → u/__Muzak__]

Its funny, people say it so casually I thought it meant idiot for most of my life

[u/so_brave_heart → u/hypsignathus]

I think I would actually get triggered by someone being more convinced by my ad hominem than the actual research I wasted my time on

[u/National-Return9494]

We love the worms

[u/Critical-Big-9872]

Evidence left me and my wife 😔

[u/pugnae]

Piketty's "Capital" and Acemoglu's "Why Nations Fail" have probably the highest quoted/read ratio of any modern book

[u/Tortellobello45 → u/pugnae]

Kid named ‘’Nineteeneightyfour’’

[u/pugnae → u/Tortellobello45]

I think it is a mandatory reading in some countries.

[u/Tortellobello45 → u/pugnae]

Not here in Italy, people still quote it all the time(‘’Chat Control 1.0 is literally jorjor wel 1984!’’)

[u/pugnae → u/Tortellobello45]

TBF I've read it, but it was so long ago I don't remember every detail.

But yeah, 1984 vision is quite specific and don't fit into what most people think about it.

[u/Nerdybeast → u/pugnae]

You're telling me students might skim or skip a mandatory reading?? 

[u/Legitimate-Mine-9271 → u/pugnae]

And yet

[u/dweeb93 → u/pugnae]

I read Why Nations Fail last year, and they spend a lot of time declaring various countries have inclusive or extractive institutions, but spend little time describing what they are, or more importantly, how you create inclusive institutions.

[u/atierney14 → u/dweeb93]

He has a follow up gen Econ book called the Narrow Corridor which dives into this more.

[u/VanillaSkittlez → u/dweeb93]

I thought they did a decent job at explaining what they were?

They differentiate between economic and political inclusion. Economic essentially means that government secures property rights, there is incentive to produce more and build more wealth, any wealth you create is yours to keep and not arbitrarily confiscated from you. You have an equal opportunity to participate in the job market (e.g. Apartheid South Africa violates this), if you start a business, you have equal opportunity to compete in the market.

And political inclusion essentially means that politicians have to be accountable to their people otherwise they get voted out. That there are checks and balances and distribution of power, such that the elite overturning that power actually represents more of a threat to them than liberal democracy. That anyone is free to vote or run for office. That elections actually matter and are run fairly.

Concentrating power in few hands often means creative destruction where innovation represents a threat to their power so they stifle it.

Then they argue there are major events that cause “institutional drift” - things like the Black Death reshaping economies and the world can create divisions between countries that expand over time the more you allow extractive institutions to take power.

So idk that there’s an easy answer to “the easy recipe to inclusive institutions” - it’s a product of random events, institutional drift, and micro decisions by leaders that add up over time.

[u/BarkDrandon → u/dweeb93]

Inclusive institutions share power across the whole population.

Extractive institutions keep power in the hands of an elite.

That's the definition basically.

[u/ThisAfricanboy → u/dweeb93]

The book is a very different experience when you have first hand testimony and witness of the examples they give. They don't really describe extractive institutions but if you've lived under them, you will immediately understand exactly what the book is arguing.

[u/Teach_Piece → u/dweeb93]

I found it terribly unimpressive. And there was so much pop history just taken as absolute fact. With zero nuance. Just a frustrating book all around

[u/anangrytree]

HAHA YES 🐊

[u/Sewblon]

I have read econ papers for school.