ech@lemmy.ca 5 hours ago
Economists: “We can’t be wrong. The results are obviously a paradox. Yeah, that’s the answer.”
I guess it takes years of study and experience to just double down over and over again instead of admitting the “miracle” tech you’re hyping accomplishes a fraction of what you’re trying to make it do. Very illuminating to us plebs that wouldn’t know better.
stoly@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
That’s reductive. I’m no economist but it goes like this: there are models that predicts the effects of certain industry changes. The invention of certain technologies at a certain time didn’t fit the prediction and they don’t know why. Someday somebody will figure it out and the model will be better. In the mean time, the model continues to work just fine with other stuff.
ech@lemmy.ca 5 hours ago
Also known as “being wrong”. Being wrong is fine. It’s great even. It means that there’s more to discover and improve. Calling it a “paradox” is a pathetic, self-serving attempt to save face when presented with evidence that makes them look bad. Instead of saying “We don’t know, but we’re working on it,” they pass it off as unsolvable.
stoly@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Paradox was a word chosen by the journalist for clicks.
Not knowing enough is not the same as being wrong. They are different things.
ech@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
Maybe. Until they start calling this out for the farce it is, I’m gonna blame them as much as the journalists pushing the hype.
Windex007@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I’m angry at social science. Just not about this specifically.