It has never been a science. You can't run controlled experiments outside of small microeconomic scenarios, so nothing is falsifiable or repeatable. It's all just arguing about correlation and causation.

1. A country specifically tailor made for scientists and engineers.

2. A country with no first class citizens

Something like Switzerland or Dubai for science and engineering, but made from scratch.

"Here’s a very short, oversimplified history of modern economics. In the 1960s and 1970s, a particular way of thinking about economics crystallized in academic departments, and basically took over the top journals. It was very math-heavy, and it modeled the economy as the sum of a bunch of rational human agents buying and selling things in a market.

The people who invented these methods (Paul Samuelson, Ken Arrow, etc.) were not very libertarian at all. But in the 70s and 80s a bunch of conservative-leaning economists used the models to claim that free markets were great. The models turned out to be pretty useful for saying “free markets are great”, simply because math is hard — it’s a lot easier to mathematically model a simple, well-functioning market than it is to model a complex world where markets are only part of the story, and where markets themselves have lots of pieces that break down and don’t work. So the intellectual hegemony of this type of mathematical model sort of dovetailed with the rise of libertarian ideology, neoliberal policy, and so on."

The logical house of cards is built upon several tenuous or flat out outrageous assumptions that do not resemble reality.

I can’t take the author seriously.

The way they used to keep them in power is by running a Nazi against them and making you choose, now people (rightfully) prefer the Nazis because at least they believe in something. So now they lawfare the Nazis so they can run unopposed (or NPC-opposed), or blackmail and bribe them into becoming centrists themselves. If we can put Al Qaeda in a suit and lap at his feet, we can certainly make Meloni into a Euro-warrior.

No need to convince anyone of anything, no need to have the support of a majority of the public, no restraints on infinite accumulation... what do you need some crypto-freshwater "why homelessness is actually the most accurate sign of prosperity" freak any more? Can't they just call Cass Sunstein? Did the numbers ever really matter? These guys specialized in telling you why the numbers were deceptive, and the real problem was any restraint on predators.

Academic economics is newly-pointless marketing of ideas popular (i.e. profitable) among elites (i.e. their bosses.) They are entirely unconcerned about the wealth of nations (nationalism!) or the wealth of citizens (communism!). When comfortable monopolies dominate, and the process of democracy is devalued ("dumb people shouldn't vote, we should follow the consensus!"), the market for marketing goes down.

It's funny how he pretends he thinks lying about inflation was decisive, as if the people affected by inflation get to hire economists, or wouldn't be more interested in becoming an economist to prove a bunch of liars wrong. Lying about inflation, or whatever else, is the job. The real message: "If you're a Democrat considering your rebrand, hire me as an advisor. I'll be your Ezra Klein, but with math!"

So, the field is being consumed by the ideology it espoused?

Automation and leaner government budgets were pushed hard by a number of schools of economic thought.

Of particular note is this section:

> REASON 4: Lying About Inflation

If you were there during the pandemic money printing, you remember the sequence all too well: first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation, then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” and finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all. Each step was wrong, and each was delivered with smug certainty. Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.

This isn't about protecting Democratic policy narratives. Arguably the single worst thing for inflation, the Paycheck Protection Program, happened under Trump. You had business owners taking out loans for pretty much anything and everything they thought they could possibly justify as business-related, no matter how tenuous that justification was, and then of course the government forgave massive amounts of it. Since business owners already tend to have more money and capital, this fueled their consumption of then-scarce products and services even more. Laws of supply-and-demand kicked in, which shouldn't be hard for the author to understand.

Ultimately the inflation that happened during the pandemic was due to the fact that for the last 45-ish years, the US has been running deficits not just in the public sector, but the private sector as well. Our economy is designed to run on debt that suddenly, people couldn't pay on time. They then looked to the government to offer a backstop, and since federal, state, and local governments have no "rainy day" fund to speak of, the federal government had to fire up the money printers.

Points 1-2 seem to match what I am seeing as an Econ PhD student on the market and what I am hearing from others. Point 3 may be happening, but this assumes that AI is going to be doing this in a way capable of producing research AND that there is a limited amount of research to be done. As someone who has used various AI agents as help in cleaning data, exactly what he suggested it does, I suspect that this will increase the value of the positions that use Econ PhDs because they can now do more.

The thing that bothers me most about this post is his point 4, and it seems so wrong to me to the degree it makes me wonder about the rest of it. I don't know what he got the following perspective.

1. first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation 2. then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” 3. finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all

In contrast, I've seen something different.

1. I saw debate over how people would save/spend rebate checks and how that would feed through to the economy. Some people speculated that it wouldn't lead to inflation based on the results of the 2008-2009 recession. Additionally, most economists I spoke to thought that the supply shocks due to the pandemic would lead to temporary inflation. If he got the impression that there was a "confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation", I would like to know who he was listening to.

2. The inflation during the pandemic _was_ transitory. Take a look at [0-2], mildly different views of one measure of inflation. The high inflation period due to the pandemic is over. Persistent inflation at the Year over Year levels seen early in the pandemic would mean we're seeing 7% inflation, not the 3%ish we're actually seeing. Federal interest rate targets would probably be in the 7APY-9APY region as a result. Part of the confusion here is due to the difference between inflation and price levels. Inflation is the rate of change of price levels. Yes we underwent inflation, and the higher prices accrued[2], but inflation rates dropped and we still paid the previously inflated prices. That is normal. The 2020 inflation bout did come at the end of a period with absurdly low inflation though; the decade between 2010 and 2020 had deals such as the $5 footlong from subway and the $5 hot and ready from little ceasars last almost the whole decade. Looking at [0] again, that time had historically low inflation. So suddenly being exposed to relatively high inflation was novel and painful.

3. I can see how this might seem like a thing. There was a whole issue where the CPI levels and the costs of living (felt inflation) differed a whole lot. There are reasons for this, such as changing consumption patterns (which change faster than the CPI basket of goods), and is due to the fact that CPI is trying to measure how prices change in a method that is comparable across time. It is not trying to measure how expensive the lives of consumers are. Especially when you use the typically presented measures of CPI which does not include food or energy (these are excluded because they are volatile). Add in income cuts and rising food prices and suddenly the budget situation of most Americans was getting more difficult. So yeah, there was a disconnect between households experience and the measures of inflation. This wasn't lying, this was people not understanding how economic statistics work and then misusing them.

Finally, the author may be ideologically motivated, e.g. [3] where he stated:

"You can participate in this societal trend, dear math world, by kicking this deranged, murderous tranny out of your ranks. Don’t let him infect the next generation of students with the woke mind virus — or, at the very least, don’t hire him in your department, where he will surely be a magnet for lawsuits." > For clarity, the use of the word "murderous" is due to the discussion about some posts by a math PhD student that are somewhat threatening. The use is on topic.

I bring this up not to attack the author but to raise questions about the author's rhetorical goals. I start by stating that I don't actually know what he is trying to achieve.

If his point is that the Econ Job market is has been rough the last 3 years and is getting worse; that is well known among economists and hopefully is known by those looking at doing a PhD in economics. The point he explains at the introduction and conclusion is that an econ PhD doesn't have the same returns or guarantees it used to (e.g. compared to 10 years ago). That is true and points 1-2 are all that is needed to make that point.

It also seems like he may be trying to call into question the value of some or all of the following: academic economists, economic training, or higher education. If that is his goal, then 1-2 are beside the point, 3 is speculation and only somewhat pertinent, and 4 is applicable but wrong. The phrasing in the title seems to point to this. Is this a complete collapse? I don't know. We'll know in 5 years though.

[0]: ANNUAL CPI INFLATION https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA [1]: MONTHLY CPI INFLATION https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPALTT01USM657N [2]: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (Price levels) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL [3]: https://www.chrisbrunet.com/p/this-phd-student-at-brown-univ...

He was a trader for Citibank and for awhile their highest paid trader. He essentially made a fortune (mostly for the bank but also for himself) by betting that after the 2008 GFC inequality would only increase, that we wouldn't go back to "normal".

He says that the best economists in the world are traders. Why? Because they have this big number over their head, their profit and loss ("P&L") that everyone at the bank can see. It also defines their bonus. All the finance and econ people in college are trying to become traders.

Then you have journalists. Any of them with an econ background have basically failed to become traders. Journalists self-select to reflect the views of their organization, famously articulated by Noam Chomsky in an interview [1].

And then you have Econ PhDs. Their only paths are to go work for academia, to produce more Econ PhDs or to work for think tanks and the like, essentially no different to the journalists. They play the same role medical researchers working for the tobacco did in the 20th century.

You see this with the dominance in Western economics academia of the Austrian School [2], which isn't precisely the same as neoliberalism but the differences are nuanced.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvGmBSHFuj0

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics

There are many careers like this, including management consulting and high finance. The hope is that AI flips the script and democratizes these important functions in society

From the introduction:

  ...As Bernanke, while still only a member of the Fed’s board of governors, said in an address at a ninetieth-birthday celebration for Friedman: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again” (2002b). This seeming similarity, however, disguises significant differences in Friedman’s and Bernanke’s approaches to financial crises...

Yes, I was unprecise to the point of being wrong.

That doesn’t mean they don’t have interesting things to say now and then, but it’s mostly just a collection of folk wisdom.

Is Javier Milei not influential? Who or what is influential, then?

> Friedman was not an Austrian

Yeah, ok, he was from the Chicago school. Same shit to me. Whatever mental masturbation they dedicated themselves to is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is which policies they championed, influenced and implemented.

And they seem pretty indistinguishable from each other. At the end of the day, they all loved the holy and sanctimonious free market like a harsh but fair deity who would grind all the undeserving and the rabble into dust.

PhDs werent dealing with stock prices either. Nobody was trying to predict the stock market. The goal was to price volatility and sell volatility to the end party that would actually roll the dice.

For your convenience, here's a link to a conversation started by someone else saying the same thing & then actually providing sources (that don't necessarily support their claim): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45466504

Granted, I know a slight bit about general equilibrium theory, but nothing about DSGE.

This is completely wrong. Weimar Germany endured significant troubles in the early years due to political instability and reparations, but managed to overcome them with American loans and rewrite some terms for a decade or so of "Golden Years" before the Wall Street Crash, in which loans were withdrawn and the unemployment then rapidly rose.

So while the Treaty played a role, the Great Depression is the direct cause for Weimar Germany's eventual collapse. If they had 10 more years to recover, or if certain political moves were done differently, Fascism likely could have avoided.

The man scammed his own supporters twice with crypto scams. He, of course, is not at all opposed to market manipulation or other types of financial scams

If they are the best and brightest of the world and typically stay back and contribute significantly above the median employee to US industry or even start their own companies, why is it framed in such a negative way?

https://philip.greenspun.com/careers/

Scroll down to the graph under "Not So Very Serious Stuff".

It's unsustainable. I got my PhD 20 years ago, but I would certainly advise my children to avoid it.

Political economists are explicitly less interested in the quantitative side of economics - which is why they call themselves political economists.

Thus, the comment about data makes a lot of sense, and isn't evidence of what is going on with economists

Because that will destroy medical care rather than save it. Just look what's happening in Europe (the waiting lists, and the game of attempting to force neighboring countries to carry the costs of training medical personnel)

Seriously, 90%? None of what you said is happening at anywhere near that scale. Touch grass.

Not even the Trump admin is alleging levels of indirect costs that high. See e.g.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0...

"Yet the average indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time."

and a lot of that is simply because nobody wants to do the detailed accounting for things like: lab electricity usage, janitorial services, misc supplies.

> The result? 90%+ of academic science is fraud.

This is dramatic nonsense; a simple made up number.

It was called statistics

People simply act irrationally, which is a fundamental issue when trying to treat economics as math.

What makes the Austrian economics "school" a cult is not the complexity of models. It's their rejection of models altogether and a refusal to make testable predictions.

This is definitely not why the 'govt began withholding federal funding'

It's how physics worked for hundreds of years. Make a handwavy model, find out it works on some cases but breaks down on others, then make a slightly less handwavy model the next time.

Metallurgy considering atomic structure is a very new concept, and was not needed for the first millenias of metalworking.

The issue with economics is not handwaving, is that models are hard to test due to systems not being well isolated.

I know, it’s my job. But as much as we like to obsess about the mechanisms for dislocations climbing and solute interactions, nobody cares when they are designing an aircraft. They have macroscopic laws they put in their finite elements code. These are perfectly adequate to describe most known modes of failures of industrial alloys. Nobody is going to model all the atoms in a macroscopic widget, ever. It’s beyond pointless.

1. Keynesianism: "Your spending is my income, so when there's not enough spending, the government needs to step in".

2. Monetarism: "The monetary supply directly controls the economy and is the primary reason for economic phenomena".

3. Austrian economy: the market god, the market is king, all hail the market.

The first two approaches provide actionable models and make predictions. As with all models, they have limits of applicability, and they are often wrong to some degree.

Meanwhile, Austrian economics is always right. And when it's wrong, it's because you haven't done it hard enough.

> If you think people in the market do things that are nasty when all the actions are voluntary (and that certainly can happen), shouldn't you be even more skeptical of those who are willing to engage in violence to force the things they want to come to be to happen?

Well, let's look at a particular example: pollution regulation. Laws limit the almighty Market by forcing compaines to clean up their waste.

Another example is monopolism. In the view of the Austrian economy "school" it is _always_ the result of government actions. And monopolies wouldn't exist otherwise, even for things like water supply and sewer.

1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people. 3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

Economics chooses to impose assumptions that peoples observed choices are a better way to study their behavior than what they say, and so we look at the observable state of the world for an individual economic agent. You can do analysis of people whose preferences are not rational (in the strict mathematical sense that I described above) but you must choose what kind of irrationality they have. And that gives you the ability to assume any results. That isn't any way to do science. Rationality is the worst option except for all the rest as they say.

That's not really helpful, because, as I said to the other poster and have subsequently been down voted for it - that's not genuine analysis, we don't know anything about who is being described as "administration" nor do we know why they're there in the first place.

I am unaware of what government intervention you are talking about in 1920. I have heard explicitly that the government did nothing by historians and I asked ChatGPT and it had nothing [1]. In that same conversation I also asked it compare Europe versus US in 2008 from an Austrian perspective. The main thesis Austrians have for busts is that of misallocated resources based on false price information whose remedy is reallocation, often through bankruptcy and repurposing of capital goods. It seems that the US was able to have a better reallocation of resources. I am not sure entirely of the mechanism, but at least some of it was allowing some things to fail and some of it might have been the government going in and manually realigning these things (taking over in the short term). It sounded like Europe did not allow for that, either direct intervention or simply allowing things to fail -- the bad businesses limped along as zombies. Europe kind of did the worst of both worlds.

As for the US, it also suggests that the Austrians, and I have heard this, cite our extreme debt, and it keeps growing, as a sign of a reckoning to come. Kind of like one can keep pumping sugar in to deal with sugar lows after a high, but eventually the bill comes due. Keynesians and others seem to view the economy as a short-term adjustable kind of thing, a chemical reaction with just the right reagents producing something wonderful. Austrians view it as a lumbering ecology, with things adapting and to the extent adaptation based on truth is present, it gets better. To the extent that distortions and violence happen, not so good. We shall, unfortunately, probably see soon enough unless AI can make a productivity miracle happen.

1: https://chatgpt.com/share/68e3ce42-6e78-8012-8a9c-1d7cff2d6f...

All AI growth today, is actually from Academia from 20 years ago.

An academic CS department has to attract PhD level talent in hot areas like ML while only paying $30k a year.

Compared to almost any activity a university could take, it is incredibly cheap to bring in mathematics PhD students.

They don't attend classes after ~2 years, mostly operate independently besides consulting with their advisor, don't take anywhere near a professor's salary, teach or TA classes, act as lab technicians, and bring in money through grants.

The costs are mostly upfront in the form of providing the necessary research facilities to attract research-oriented faculty and students, and the administrative staff needed to ensure compliance with grant terms.

Honestly no.

Newton mechanics can be accurate to 20 decimal places, that’s currently indistinguishable from reality in relevant and well understood contexts. Making Newtonian Mechanics actually useful.

The core microeconomic assumption is never anywhere close to that accurate. It works except XYZ which doesn’t apply is acceptable, it never works isn’t.

It sounds like people don't understand bureaucracy is always imperfect. If it was perfect then you don't need to create another agency called DOGE while having Congressional Budget Office and do exactly the same things.

The question should be is there fraud/fat/waste which has a meaningful impact? If not then it changing it wouldn't really matter. The unfortunate thing is that anecdotal evidence rules supreme and there are enemies every where.

"Data doesn't support a meaningful impact? I saw it with my own eyes so it should be true and the person reporting the data must have Democrat agenda"

What does a graduate math program need? A building with some offices and classrooms, wifi, email service, maybe a couple of secretaries and janitors, office supplies, and salaries for students and researchers/instructors.

What need does a math program have for any but the most basic administration? That's where all the money is going, where the biggest growth in spending is going.

You could cut university admin costs by 75% and lose nothing. Start with the top 25 university presidents who all earn a slightly rounded up 2 million a year and more.

I feel like this is an example where we can get almost everyone behind reducing costs at college by showing better data. If you were to show, for example, that 7x is almost all carbon emissions admins then I think we'd see a ton of support to cut these positions. But it may also be the case that people see the admin responsibilities and say, "Oh... OK, that makes sense". The problem is -- with this data, I have no idea.

"Raise house prices now or I'll send you to the principal's office!"

The gays didn't send house prices to the moon. Mexicans didn't send the jobs to China. No, it's the people with assets who pursued asset-pumping policy to great effect. You're right to be angry, but you're a fool to believe them when they point at universities as the source of the problem.

Whatever beef you got is what 'media' fed you selected smug academics to piss you off.

> At my college, birth control was as free as water. Teaching people to postpone marriage, children, for the sake of career, combined with record-high school debt... might be partly why academia finds themselves in this demographic decline. They told the next generation not to have kids, made it financially impossible to have kids, and lo and behold, there's less kids entering college now.

Hard to tell if this is just parody.

I will say that if feel that providing something equates to mandating it... I don't know how we're going to be able to have logical exchanges

Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder.

The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda.

A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. They are leaders, who are occupied getting funding and setting the direction.

>Did you miss the comment we are replying to? The existing oversight is ineffective. It’s just a hoop for the professor to jump through.

It's not ineffective though, and an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.

>Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.

You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.

>There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.

Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.

>Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career.

Wrong. Every PI I know does the stuff they like, and they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.

>I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.

You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".

>yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism. >Name calling.

Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.

All oversight is a hoop to jump through in a low-trust principal-agent system. Adding oversight bureaucracy partially helps in aligning the scientists to the public interests (after all, if they're working on something totally disconnected from funding goals, they won't get funded) but can never really increase public trust in the scientists or the grant-agency bureaucrats.

Starting your career 10 years earlier (effectively) and immediately progressing in your career probably gets you further. Especially if you look towards management, which is where the money is (usually, million dollar AI research salaries is a new thing).

You can say “cut salaries in half” about any industry. You could say it about software engineers. But just because you say that doesn’t mean it’ll work out well for the industry. Non-minimum wage salaries should be market driven. I doubt you could just cut salaries in half and keep a reasonable work force.

An anecdote is not data, not ever.

No matter how you try to spin things, your claim was worth less than the recycled electrons it rode in on.

For example, when talking about the economics of healthcare (or anything else, but lets start with healthcare), the conversation is approached from the get-go under the assumption that:

1. Healthcare is already a free market.

2. It is possible for healthcare to be a free market.

1. is just not true. Healthcare, in the US and and all developed nations, is not a free market. But, economists will just assume it is, because they assume everything is a free market, and then apply free market dynamics. Basically, they skip step 1, and go to step 1000.

And, for number 2, it's very debatable. IMO no, healthcare cannot be a free market, just by virtue of what healthcare is as a service. But that's debatable, I won't get into it.

Point is, we immediately start our economic understanding based off assumptions on top of assumptions that come from free market thinking, thinking around IP, thinking about consumer knowledge, thinking about access, etc.

We make absolutely wild and unsubstantiated claims for free, and nobody checks them.

That’s actually not what I said.

> If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for.

My claim is not about good or bad. My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public.

> This is grants 101

You seem to agree such a gap exists, you just think it’s a good thing or a matter of business.

> because it is not my expertise

So notice when I bring up correct information, I’m told I don’t have the experience/expertise to do so despite my academic union card.

Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas.

> You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.

you seem to identify intellectualism as a group of people or an organization.

I think that’s a mockery of truth and ideas.

Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.

After all, it's not like the epistemologies of the other humanities stands on far more shakier grounds...

All models start with givens…

(I don't feel like anyone is upset?)

You need a model to design an experiment.

This is how all science is done. You hypothesize. Then experiment.

Among the most dramatic cutbacks was the dismantling of the National Cancer Institute, which halted early detection programs for breast and cervical cancer. Funding was also frozen for immunization campaigns, severely disrupting vaccine access during Argentina's first measles outbreak in decades. The National Directorate for HIV, Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis lost 40 percent of its staff and 76 percent of its budget, delaying diagnosis and treatment across the country. Emergency contraception and abortion pill distribution have also stopped.

Prescription drug prices and private health insurance premiums have surged by 250 percent and 118 percent, respectively, according to official data.

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/278391265/mileis-austeri...

Obviously, this is an article from the political side of things (I tried to cut out value judgements), but these are decisions made by actual economists like José Luis Espert, Agustín Etchebarne, Federico Sturzenegger, Alberto Benegas Lynch and probably a million others I'm not aware of.