shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
The difficulty with extremely complex problems - which issues with the economy almost always are - is that cause and effect are virtually impossible to determine.
It may be the case that regardless of what Congress did, including doing nothing, the economy would collapse. But bail-out naysayers will blame ANYTHING negative that happens from here on out on the bail-out. Similarly, if Congress had done nothing, the other side would say inaction was the cause.
In the same way, everyone is looking at past actions and nit-picking who did what when. Anything perceived to have contributed to the mess is considered blameworthy. I do it myself, blaming the Bush Administration's lax oversight as a major cause of our economic woes.
Is it possible that perfectly reasonable actions contributed to horrible results because the results simply weren't predictable?
If we're so smart, how come over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years, there wasn't a deafening chorus of criticism of all those actions, and widespread dire predictions of the catastrophe we now face?
All I need to know to prove that NO ONE KNOWS JACK is that on almost ANY economic issue, half the economists are on one side, and half are on the other. If cause and effect is so clear - if it's so clear who made what bad decision when - how come there's no economic consensus on virtually anything?
Not every problem is solvable. And even solvable problems may be too complex to be solvable given the current state of knowledge.
We have only one chance at any course in history. We don't get to see an alternative history. It's awfully easy to see bad results and think someone is blameworthy. I prefer to think that it's impossible to anticipate the infinity of ways there are to fvck up.
We've had a pretty good run at good times. Now things are turning sour. I prefer to think this is just the way it is.
Get over it.
It may be the case that regardless of what Congress did, including doing nothing, the economy would collapse. But bail-out naysayers will blame ANYTHING negative that happens from here on out on the bail-out. Similarly, if Congress had done nothing, the other side would say inaction was the cause.
In the same way, everyone is looking at past actions and nit-picking who did what when. Anything perceived to have contributed to the mess is considered blameworthy. I do it myself, blaming the Bush Administration's lax oversight as a major cause of our economic woes.
Is it possible that perfectly reasonable actions contributed to horrible results because the results simply weren't predictable?
If we're so smart, how come over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years, there wasn't a deafening chorus of criticism of all those actions, and widespread dire predictions of the catastrophe we now face?
All I need to know to prove that NO ONE KNOWS JACK is that on almost ANY economic issue, half the economists are on one side, and half are on the other. If cause and effect is so clear - if it's so clear who made what bad decision when - how come there's no economic consensus on virtually anything?
Not every problem is solvable. And even solvable problems may be too complex to be solvable given the current state of knowledge.
We have only one chance at any course in history. We don't get to see an alternative history. It's awfully easy to see bad results and think someone is blameworthy. I prefer to think that it's impossible to anticipate the infinity of ways there are to fvck up.
We've had a pretty good run at good times. Now things are turning sour. I prefer to think this is just the way it is.
Get over it.
Facebook
Twitter