<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "How Often are Economists Wrong?" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/75]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from George_Frost]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/8551]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[How about economists trying to predict who will be President:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0138628820080801
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/8551]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from erewhon]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/8079]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Economists are useful at providing advice on ficsal policy.

They are next to useless at predicting the future in a macro-economic environment.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/8079]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from busstop]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7763]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Having worked in the field I can tell you the one thing that Economists DO NOT DO is look for any empirical validation to support their theories.

Example: SOME Economists say &quot;Introducing a minimum wage always leads to higher unemployment.&quot;
A national minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999.  Unemployment fell for several years after.  SOME Economists still say &quot;Introducing a minimum wage always leads to higher unemployment.&quot;

Now of course you can argue a minimum wage will cause unemployment to be higher than it otherwise would've been. (I don't accept this btw - i think the effect is marginal and other factors are the main determinants of the unemployment level).  But that's not the claim that SOME economists make.  They make the claim as stated.

In science hypotheses are validated.  This is not the case in Economics.   If you were to ask astrologers they would not doubt talk with the same certainty as economists about the causal relationships in history, and they'd be about as trustworthy.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMPDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7763]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ssanghavi]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7727]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I really like this idea, but honestly i don't think it's ambtious enough.  Here are some other things that I would like to see this survey accomplish:

1.  It's great to get a consensus professional economist opinion on the candidates' specific policies, however, I think these opinions would need to be qualified with extra information.  Some examples include long term vs. short term implications (a policy could be really good in the short term and have very disasterous long term consequences), the winners and losers associated with the policy (obviously there are trade-offs with each policy decision, I'd like to know what those trade-offs are), etc.

2.  It's also important to guage the overall importance of the policy decisions at hand.  One candidate may have 3 really bad policy ideas, but they may be relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.  I'd like to know what the economists think is important.  I may think that having a balanced budget is important, but if 0% of economists think that, then it might be nice to know.

3.  I'd like to see this experiment extended beyond economists to also include experts on foreign policy, the environment, energy, education etc.  If we're going to get the experts' opinion on which candidate has the best policies, shouldn't we examine the policies from more than just an economic perspective.  Energy and cliamate policy is obviously one of the bigger short and long term challenges for the next president.  I'd like to know who the experts like on those topics and why.   I agree that many of these topics are fairly subjective as opposed to economics and the historical data might not be as predictive, but if there is consensus in any of these profesional communities then I think it is valuable to know about.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMPDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7727]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DMH]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7527]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You're killing me here Scott.  My boss has a PhD in economics and he reads Dilbert daily your blog a couple times a week.  Worse he knows I like to surf your site which means that everytime he sees you raving about the genius of economists I have to watch his head swell slightly more.

I guess there are worse things, but his head is getting prtetty big.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7527]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Devils Advocate]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7523]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Getting a handle on the economy is great, but can economists also steer you to the right candidate when it comes to other issues such as the war, immigration, civil rights, health care, etc...  I think you're missing the bigger, more holistic picture.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7523]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from cmj]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7521]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I like where you're going with this.  :^)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7521]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from smarterthaneinstein]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7520]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hermantsclone wrote:

&quot;A country which can afford the luxury of being shepherded by texan cow-boys for 10 years is not poor.&quot;

...it may not be an indicator that we are poor, rather it is the reason why we (some of us anyhow) are now poor.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7520]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dsg]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7519]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hi Scott,

While you are spending some money on the survey, which I think is a great idea, you should also buy a monkey and a dart board. Paste the survey to the dart board, let ChimChim do his thing and we will see who is smarter. Also you could teach the monkey to walk the new puppy. I doubt any economist could be that useful.

dsg]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7519]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from sjanlaird]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7507]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[On a different note, &quot;Are you funnier than Scott Adams?&quot; runs the tag to the mashups link. Well I've now got back a statistically significant sample and can conclude with reasonable certainty that no, I'm not funnier than Scott Adams. Can you please amend the line to read &quot;You're not funnier than Scott Adams?&quot; Many thanks.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7507]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Hemantsclone]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7502]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[We the blessed &amp; lucky people of the world outside the US look at your situation in this way:

The US is:

1. A country where the housing pricess fall is not poor!

2. A country which is a net exporter of energy is not poor!

3. A country which has the balls to treat its suppliers as if they were customers is not poor. (e.g. China, India)

4. A country which can write off a trillion dollars in the local market by selling financial assets in India is not poor.

5. A country which can afford the luxury of being shepherded by texan cow-boys for 10 years is not poor.

The 'Can-Do' US always succeeds in its endeavours on account of its sheer grit and genius. And then lets the success be hijacked by parasites like Religion and fruitcake philosophers.

Hence the recession.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7502]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from feanor1600]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7501]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I think most economists didn't get these predictions right because they never made any in the first place.  Most are to specialized or abstract to care about macro policy.

Those who did look at it, though, pretty much got it right.  Robert Shiller of Yale has been talking about the housing bubble for years and they still let him be president of the Eastern Economics Association.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7501]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from random thunking]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7499]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I love Dilbert. I think Scott is comedic genius.

But why why why do I want to whack him on the head with a baseball bat everytime he talks about economics?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7499]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Bloodboiler]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7496]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Here's a survey that I would find more interesting..

Collect a volunteer think tank team with members who have advanced degrees in:
-Economy,
-Biology,
-Climatology,
-Anthropology,
-Sociology,
-Political science,
-Physics,
-Chemistry,
-Engineering (power infrastructure).
At least these but more the better and as many polymaths as possible. No crackpots and no US citizens. Then make that team evaluate plans of the candidates.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7496]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Mokkery]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7493]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I am really looking forward to the results of this survey because, when it comes right down to it, economists are the only ones whose opinions matter. 

Who really gives a crap if 75 thousand hard working Americans lost their homes to forclosure last month? What is important is that our big corporations make a lot of money so they can keep our economy vibrant. 

Do I care how many American soldiers get killed or maimed in Iraq? Not one bit...as long as it doesn't impact my wallet.

The macro view of our economy really is the only important issue in this election. If you don't believe me, just ask any economist.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7493]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from cpbrown1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7492]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Harry Truman said &quot; Get me a one handed economist&quot;. He was tired of always hearing &quot;On the hand this &amp; on the other that&quot;

Unfortunately, there is seldom a simple clearcut solution to any issue. That's why they have the term &quot;unintended consequences&quot;. Recycling costs &amp; procedures is one example of a seemingly simple answer with very complex results. Also, I think the rush towards &amp; rapid retreat away from biofuels is another example.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7492]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from KDAWG]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7483]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott is paying for the survey so he gets to decide what group or groups are polled. If he wants 17year old crack addicts, thatâ€™s his choice. When the results are published what I would like to know is how the â€œexpertsâ€ were chosen and the questions (exact wording) used. You can get any result you want in a survey by the wording of the questions.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7483]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Fire@will]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7481]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott - please have someone monitor the MASHUP area.  A couple of kiddies have gotten on there and left a large number of (what passes for witty to pre-pubescent boys) efforts (very obscene and disgusting).  

Meanwhile, I suggest that any interested/responsible subscribers go to the MASHUP section and FLAG any contribution by &quot;satan&quot; or &quot;ihateppl&quot;.  (If you read a couple of their &quot;jokes&quot;, you'll appreciate that I've suggested a way to avoid reading the rest.)

Maybe there should be a 24-hour delay before posting?  And maybe some kind of filter to automatically flag obvious words?

Scott's long suffering fans deserve better than to be subjected to this purile garbage.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7481]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from raunaqahuja]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7478]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[its all b.s. 
everything is controlled by oil lobby who hve jacked up the oil prices hurting the economy so nobody cares abt the environment in the elections]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7478]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from agentlion]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7476]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@MyNDIrish - i just finished writing a very long and detailed response, but this stupid blog software lost it after I hit &quot;Post&quot;. I'm so angry right now I'm not going to try to recreate it. 

In short, though, I encourage you to take a look at the following links. 
This one, that I just read this morning before you posted, is a recent study that shows even more evidence that autism is almost certainly genetic - http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=336

And this one is a Time Magazine cover story from just a couple weeks ago going into great detail about modern vaccines and the autism &quot;explosion&quot; - http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808438,00.html
I don't know how anyone can claim there is a void of knowledge or not enough information reaching the public when one of the most popular magazines in the world presents a cover story on it. 

Briefly to directly respond to your question of  &quot;why the explosion&quot; - it's all covered in those links and others, but 1) The definition and diagnosis of autism was modified in the mid-90s. The bar was lowered for what was considered autistic. That means that literally overnight there were millions of people who would now be classified as autistic as before. 
2) Doctors are now more aware of autism (partially because of the press it received when #1 happened) and are looking for the signs more closely, where as before the symptoms might have been diagnosed as something else (just a learning disability or anti-social behavior, perhaps) or ignored completely. 
3) given 1 and 2, autism is likely OVER diagnosed now

Finally - &quot;armchair doctors&quot;, just like armchair climatologists, scientists and economists, are not adding anything useful to the discussion. They are relying on gut-instinct, fear, and misinformation to come to faulty conclusions. Please, please, please leave science up to the scientists, and when those scientists come out with evidence-backed conclusions, please read them and don't ignore them if they conflict with your previous non-evidence-backed hypothesis.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMPDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/7476]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMPSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMPSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
