• IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’m not one to argue small values, as far as I know this stuff will be better understood in retrospect, in the same way peer-reviewed scientific understanding is, years later.

    I am curious though, do you think there would be evidence or just data that, for the time being (since, like I said, this stuff is better understood after the fact when enough data is gathered, disseminated, reviewed, etc.) would make you reconsider?

    If the IMF or the relevant CPC association put out numbers much lower than 5%, I’d consider it plausible and keep it as a provisional value along with the forecasted ones and the current range alleged by different groups. If the Chicago School of Economics or Austrian School (lol, do they do math? jk) published something, I’d have to look at it before dismissing it.

    So I’m just curious because clearly you put in effort, and I have a hard time understanding the bounds and methodology you use since 1. it’s different from the folks here, and 2. it’s different from contemporary orthodox/heterodox economists.