So STEM should be known as STE but it is STEM.
So STEM should be known as STE but it is STEM.
And I said comsci is technology,math, maybe engineering but hardly science. Mathematical proves of big O and the rest of algorithms and data structures is not a study of natural phenomena and the experiments supporting theoretical run times are not discoveries of natural phenomena, they are more reflective of the engineering effort that goes into construction of the computers that execute the theory.
It is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, I think comsci qualifies for the last three but not for the first one and I have a comsci degree.
Aye, but if you save that extra instead of frittering it away, you can retire years before you are 67.
The economy is dragged down by the bailouts, bailouts are always the wrong thing to do if you are looking for a sound economy in the long run and not for a repeat of the same problem down the road only bigger and worse.
We really are.
The number of hours people need to work to obtain the basics has been dropping for a long time.
We have raised our standards in some area. Many people insist on having their own car vs using public transportation and a bicycle. Many people insist on having a private house tho shared dwellings were normal until the 1950s even in the united states.
Food has dropped a bit in quality but has dropped much more in price.
What hasn't and won't drop in price are rare, limited, and unique things.
Land in a premium location.
Time spent with attractive people (tho attractive people have become more common).
We really do give a lot of things away free as long as we don't have to admit that they are free. The government pays farmers and ranchers to NOT grow crops and animals so the prices won't drop too much.
We have a small percentage of the population taking much more than it did in the past (nine times more than even only 30 years ago). For the most part, that share of resources is parked unused in very low risk positions and is basically 'extracted" from the rest of society.
But the basics (simple clothing, food, shelter, and even 90% of health care) are cheap.
Propping up our currency did not prop up our economy. It shit on our production/manufacturing while keeping Chinese goods cheap.
- propping up USA currency provided USA with a way to buy cheap Chinese produced goods. No, it did not prop up your economy, it propped up your consumption and it destroyed your economy. However the Chinese did not do this in vacuum, USA got off the gold dollar (defaulted on the gold dollar in 1971) because it was printing so many dollars for decades prior to 1971 and it could not pay in gold for its past spending.
USA destroyed its economy by destroying its currency. At the point of currency default (1971) the expansion of the money supply was set in stone. That is what destroyed USA economy. Common sense is not that common. Once USA destroyed its own currency, manufacturing was going to leave one way or another, since no real savings can exist in that environment.
China gave you plenty of rope to hang yourself with, you took the rope, wrapped it around your neck and kicked the chair of sound money from underneath yourself. The rope was Chinese, but you put it onto your own neck and kicked the chair out yourself.
The only lunatic here is you, government of USSR was the only legal owner of all businesses in that country. Do you want to compare records of what a government can do to environment relative to what businesses do absent government?
Chernobyl was not a free market capitalist enterprise.
Smart people also do Dumb things.
Dumb people also do Good things.
Good people also do Bad things.
Bad people also do Smart things.
Smart people also do Good things.
Dumb people also do Bad things.
Good people also do Smart things.
Bad people also do Dumb things.
Smart people also do Bad things.
Dumb people also do Smart things.
Good people also do Dumb things.
Bad people also do Good things.
How to use statistics to imply anything
The zen of tiny sample sizes
Regression therapy, or, How to make someone think they remember something that never happened
The more letters you have, the more authoritative you can pretend you are. So come back for a baccalaureate!
Congratulations! You are now the proud owner of an Associate's Degree in Psychology!
Yeah, but you have to say that very, very softly.
Why a central bank would elevate economics to the status of awarding a Nobel prize is because they recognize just how valuable the field is to their work.
Why a central bank would elevate economics to the status of awarding a Nobel prize is because they recognize just how valuable the field is to defrauding the general public.
If you broaden your definition of science to include all fields of human investigation, sure.
Science is a method. When the only results of the method you can generate iare cloudy statistical results that may, or may not, apply to any specific instance you actually need to, or are trying to, understand, then you have not done anything useful or new, scientifically speaking.
On the other hand, if you can convince some moneyed party to part with same in following your cloudy statistical results, why then you do have something useful. This is the basis for every psychology shingle ever hung out, and every economic theory more meta than the math for interest and debt put on the table (which is really more simple math than economics anyway.) But you still have not done worthy science.
Psychology is a science, although a fairly new one.
Yes? Freud or Erikson? Psychosocial or psychosexual or psychoanalytic? Or primal screaming? Regression therapy and "repressed memories"? Momma's skirts and "everything is sex"? Standardized personality tests that are based on mid 20th century, middle-American groups of minimal sample size?
The only thing really "scientific" about psychology is its misuse of statistics to apply a behavioral theory that has some statistical traction, to the individual who may not fall into that theory's particular use of metaphor.
Psychology must start from this basis: Knowing how the mind works. But the fact is, we don't know how the mind works.
Ergo, psychology is something else. IMHO, that something else is significantly more akin to religion (by which I mean formalized superstition) than it is to a science that actually produces worthwhile conclusions.
Let's review science in a nutshell: Idea, prediction, test, data, peer review resulting in reliable, consensual, repeatable results... or right back to drawing board, folks.
Now psychology: a veritable cornucopia of ideas, consequent prediction failures, massively disjoint results, outliers and exceptions everywhere, fad driven and reminiscent of nothing so much as a pendulum that with a colony of rabid, highly kinetic squirrels nesting on the pendulum.
Science? No. The word we use for this kind of nonsense is "bunkum."
No argument there. The credit contraction, made inevitable by the prior inflationary boom, caused both the deflation and the initial decline in the economy, but it was the policies instituted under Hoover and Roosevelt which prevented the sharp recovery that would otherwise have taken place, thus earning that period its label of "the Great Depression".
My point was simply that while the Great Depression did include quite a bit of deflation, there is no causative relationship between ordinary deflation, such as can be expected from increased productivity under a constant money supply, and events like the Great Depression.
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan