Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.

[Draco-Onis]

If the use of mathematics is for an inductive and probabilistic model then yes it is pseudo-science. Unless a model can be proven 100% wrong then it has nothing to do with science.

So let's say you are right and that the IMF, the fed, Trump's treasury and every economic body in the US is wrong, what do you see will stimulate the economy? monetary policy is at its limits and no fiscal stimulus during the election year. What will move our GDP above its current trajectory? magic?

[PC2]

So let's say you are right and that the IMF, the fed, Trump's treasury and every economic body in the US is wrong,

I wasn't saying any people or groups are wrong, I was just stating the inherent limitations of all predictive models. Which some people don't seem to understand. The important point here is that there's no amount of data that you can feed a model to predict the future of an unbounded domain, like the stock market and economy. Predictive models can only be reliable in a bounded domain of discourse, like say you want to model the game of checkers, it's easy because it's based on a fixed amount of outcomes. But most real world problems can't be solved in this way.

what do you see will stimulate the economy? monetary policy is at its limits and no fiscal stimulus during the election year. What will move our GDP above its current trajectory? magic?

I don't know of any governmental policy that will stimulate the economy. In my view I see the vast majority of progress happening because of the overall culture of a country. Do most people wake up each day and work on improving and being more creative or productive in some way. I'm not saying government policy doesn't matter, it's just I don't think it matters that much compared to the private sector and what people decide to do on a daily basis.

[Draco-Onis]

I wasn't saying any people or groups are wrong, I was just stating the inherent limitations of all predictive models. Which some people don't seem to understand. The important point here is that there's no amount of data that you can feed a model to predict the future of an unbounded domain, like the stock market and economy. Predictive models can only be reliable in a bounded domain of discourse, like say you want to model the game of checkers, it's easy because it's based on a fixed amount of outcomes. But most real world problems can't be solved in this way.

Are you serious right now? you've just spend the last few post calling their models pseudo science, fake among many things so I ask you why do you think you know better?

I don't know of any governmental policy that will stimulate the economy. In my view I see the vast majority of progress happening because of the overall culture of a country. Do most people wake up each day and work on improving and being more creative or productive in some way. I'm not saying government policy doesn't matter, it's just I don't think it matters that much compared to the private sector and what people decide to do on a daily basis.

Honest question, have you ever taken an economics class in your life? or history? The new deal, the great depression, the internet that you are on etc. I am seriously starting to doubt your sanity.

[Beefhammer]

I don't know of any governmental policy that will stimulate the economy. In my view I see the vast majority of progress happening because of the overall culture of a country. Do most people wake up each day and work on improving and being more creative or productive in some way. I'm not saying government policy doesn't matter, it's just I don't think it matters that much compared to the private sector and what people decide to do on a daily basis.

Of course you dont because you don't want to look or admit that cash works and is really the only stimulus that actually works. You want to stimulate the economy, you give working class people's money. They spend it. It grows the economy, reduces supply, which increases production, causes business to reinvest and hire, and so on.

[PC2]

Are you serious right now? you've just spend the last few post calling their models pseudo science, fake among many things so I ask you why do you think you know better?

Only the probabilistic part of the model. Probability means you can't prove something wrong because you can always claim that the model is right but it just happens that some rare or new event is on the low probability part of probability distribution.

Honest question, have you ever taken an economics class in your life? or history? The new deal, the great depression, the internet that you are on etc. I am seriously starting to doubt your sanity.

And? I'm not anti-government, the public sector is the best at developing and managing some things.

Also all I said was that I don't know of governmental policy solutions for everything. If I don't know something I simply don't advocate for it.

Of course you dont because you don't want to look or admit that cash works and is really the only stimulus that actually works. You want to stimulate the economy, you give working class people's money. They spend it. It grows the economy, reduces supply, which increases production, causes business to reinvest and hire, and so on.

I'm not against giving working class people money. I've said many times that UBI is an ideal form of welfare but it would require us to grow the economy so the government can get more tax revenue. Adding trillions of dollars to the budget isn't realistic in 2019 though.

[Draco-Onis]

Only the probabilistic part of the model. Probability means you can't prove something wrong because you can always claim that the model is right but it just happens that some rare event is on the low probability part of probability distribution.

Do you not understand the concept or are just against statistics? because it seems you just don't get the point of the entire field.

And? I'm not anti-government, the public sector is the best at developing and managing some things.

Also all I said was that I don't know of governmental policy solutions for everything. If I don't know something I simply don't advocate for it.
.

Okay let me spell it out for you barring an out of this world innovation by the US we are currently on track to continue to suffer from a economy that's slowing down with a good chance of a recession. The government can implement fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and those are proven to work like if we didn't spend trillions padding the pockets of the rich and corporations and spent it on infrastructure which Trump keeps saying he wants to do but never pushes forward.

[PC2]

Do you not understand the concept or are just against statistics? because it seems you just don't get the point of the entire field.

I'm against inductive statistics which is large part of the field of statistics. You realize that just because some field uses math and data gathering and sounds "sciency" then it must be science. This is false. Not everything involving numbers and calculations is science.

Okay let me spell it out for you barring an out of this world innovation by the US we are currently on track to continue to suffer from a economy that's slowing down with a good chance of a recession. The government can implement fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and those are proven to work like if we didn't spend trillions padding the pockets of the rich and corporations and spent it on infrastructure which Trump keeps saying he wants to do but never pushes forward.

Okay I'm not necessarily against any of that I just think the focus should be on economic growth instead of raising tax rates from where they are now.

[Draco-Onis]

Okay I'm not necessarily against any of that I just think the focus should be economic growth instead of raising tax rates from where they are now.

So you think it's perfectly fine to have companies like Amazon and Google with negative tax rates on billions of dollars of profit?

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm against inductive statistics which is large part of the field of statistics. You realize that just because some field uses math and data gathering and sounds "sciency" then it must be science. This is false. Not everything involving numbers and calculations is science.

The idea that inductive statistics is pseudoscience is a crock of shit. What, do you think that because a predictive model can't act with perfect 100% accuracy then it's entirely worthless?

Only the probabilistic part of the model. Probability means you can't prove something wrong because you can always claim that the model is right but it just happens that some rare or new event is on the low probability part of probability distribution.

Then you flat-out don't understand how probability and probabilistic models work.

[Beefhammer]

Only the probabilistic part of the model. Probability means you can't prove something wrong because you can always claim that the model is right but it just happens that some rare or new event is on the low probability part of probability distribution.



And? I'm not anti-government, the public sector is the best at developing and managing some things.

Also all I said was that I don't know of governmental policy solutions for everything. If I don't know something I simply don't advocate for it.



I'm not against giving working class people money. I've said many times that UBI is an ideal form of welfare but it would require us to grow the economy so the government can get more tax revenue. Adding trillions of dollars to the budget isn't realistic in 2019 though.

Sure it is we have trillions to waste every year. We can 1, surely trim some if the fat and 2, raise the taxes back on those that are more than well off and corporations. Among many of the other things that can be done.

[Tazkar]

Only the probabilistic part of the model. Probability means you can't prove something wrong because you can always claim that the model is right but it just happens that some rare or new event is on the low probability part of probability distribution.

That's not entirely accurate.
If you have a probability model that says "Oh yeah this is 90% likely to happen every single time X happens!" And then you have 20 Instances in a row where the complete and polar opposite happened. Then you can't say the 'Model is right the data just happened to not match up' If its that far outside of the model then something is wrong with the model itself, IE the model is wrong.

Weather systems are based on probability models factoring in as much data as we can conceivably put into the system that can affect the outcome, and that isn't 100% accurate all the time but it isn't pseudoscience.

[PC2]

So you think it's perfectly fine to have companies like Amazon and Google with negative tax rates on billions of dollars of profit?

Yeah of course because that's mostly caused by high re-investment and expenses and prior years of losses that can and should be carried over into future years for deduction purposes. I don't doubt that there is some shady loopholes that need to be fixed, but the deductions I just mentioned aren't loopholes.

The idea that inductive statistics is pseudoscience is a crock of shit. What, do you think that because a predictive model can't act with perfect 100% accuracy then it's entirely worthless?

Then you flat-out don't understand how probability and probabilistic models work.

Induction never leads to knowledge and it's always wrong. If you gain some understanding from data it's because you used deductive reasoning to gain *explanatory* knowledge. Both mathematics and physics are 100% deductive.

That's not entirely accurate.
If you have a probability model that says "Oh yeah this is 90% likely to happen every single time X happens!" And then you have 20 Instances in a row where the complete and polar opposite happened. Then you can't say the 'Model is right the data just happened to not match up' If its that far outside of the model

I'm not really sure what the argument for this part is.

then something is wrong with the model itself, IE the model is wrong.

Yeah so all models of an unbounded domain are wrong because they are an approximation. If you run a simulation of a physical system that approximation causes more and more errors at each timestep.

Also, a model is similar to a theory and they can't be right. They can be less wrong though.

Weather systems are based on probability models factoring in as much data as we can conceivably put into the system that can affect the outcome, and that isn't 100% accurate all the time but it isn't pseudoscience.

Actually nothing is probabilistic so we shouldn't be using it at all except for the sake of convenience. We teach it in schools because it helps us understand things like flipping a coin and card games. But in reality that coin flip is never probabilistic, the only reason we use probability is because we don't have all the knowledge of exactly how a person will initially toss the coin and how the position and momentum of the object will change.

[Tazkar]

Actually nothing is probabilistic so we shouldn't be using it at all except for the sake of convenience. We teach it in schools because it helps us understand things like flipping a coin and card games. But in reality that coin flip is never probabilistic, the only reason we use probability is because we don't have all the knowledge of exactly how a person will initially toss the coin and how the position and momentum of the object will change.

I was saying Weather Forecasts were based on probability models, I was not saying weather was itself probabilistic. But we use said models for making weather predictions because we can't factor in 100% of the data that can affect the weather. But we still get enough data that we can generally be fairly accurate in our predictions of the weather.

But as for how that ties into economics, we do the same thing, plug in data and information on the market to make general predictions. But as has been said you can't predict with 100% accuracy as to what the market will do all the time because information you don't have access to may arise that changes everything. But it doesn't make the models completely useless just because they can't tell the exact future.

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah of course because that's mostly caused by high re-investment and expenses and prior years of losses that can and should be carried over into future years for deduction purposes. I don't doubt that there is some shady loopholes that need to be fixed, but the deductions I just mentioned aren't loopholes.

The vast majority of companies paying zero to negative taxes are using loopholes from using shell companies overseas to registering rights of software in other places. These are not small businesses, Trump gave the tax cut and added more loopholes now the amount of companies doing this has more than doubled while the debt and deficit has exploded.

[PC2]

I was saying Weather Forecasts were based on probability models, I was not saying weather was itself probabilistic. But we use said models for making weather predictions because we can't factor in 100% of the data that can affect the weather. But we still get enough data that we can generally be fairly accurate in our predictions of the weather.

Yeah lol but that's illustrating my point. There's a reason that meteorologists are ridiculed for being wrong so much... As our weather forecasts get more reliable it will be because we gain more explanatory power(and better tech) which all predictive power flows from that.

But as for how that ties into economics, we do the same thing, plug in data and information on the market to make general predictions. But as has been said you can't predict with 100% accuracy as to what the market will do all the time because information you don't have access to may arise that changes everything. But it doesn't make the models completely uselessjust because they can't tell the exact future.

As far as the bolded part that is very true. Models are incredible useful, we couldn't even use computers without some kind of modelling. A person too exists as a kind of model so we would be dead without them.

- - - Updated - - -

The vast majority of companies paying zero to negative taxes are using loopholes from using shell companies overseas to registering rights of software in other places. These are not small businesses, Trump gave the tax cut and added more loopholes now the amount of companies doing this has more than doubled while the debt and deficit has exploded.

Okay yes we should fix the loopholes, they certainly exist. I was only arguing about legitimate write-offs and deductions.

[Fahrenheit]

...the economy is blazing hot...

Lol, 2% GDP is "blazing hot" now.

[Zan15]

Lol, 2% GDP is "blazing hot" now.

didn't you hear, all of a sudden GDP doesn't matter.....just like trillion dollar deficits, debt, so called "real unemployment numbers of 42%", transparency, healthcare plan, infrastructure, middle class tax cuts...etc etc etc

/s

- - - Updated - - -

Okay yes we should fix the loopholes, they certainly exist. I was only arguing about legitimate write-offs and deductions.

Its the legitimate write offs that are the problem, since they were created by corporate lackeys to give huge benefits to corporations that the average individual tax payer would and could never get.

could you imagine how many trillions less the individual tax payer would be paying each year if they had access to even 1/10th of the "legitimate write offs" corporations do?

[jeezusisacasual]

These are the same morons who think that cutting SNAP wont have a ripple effect for the nations grocers whom without SNAP would have to cut staff period. Yes grocers getting less revenue will spark them to just hire more? The economy is not very strong given the not QE that the FED is calling their current QE says this enough, also if this economy was fantastic rates would be going closer to 5% not being dropped for 3 straight times. I am sure these same people would be taken to the cleaners on a MLM scheme.

[Kokolums]

These are the same morons who think that cutting SNAP wont have a ripple effect for the nations grocers whom without SNAP would have to cut staff period. Yes grocers getting less revenue will spark them to just hire more? The economy is not very strong given the not QE that the FED is calling their current QE says this enough, also if this economy was fantastic rates would be going closer to 5% not being dropped for 3 straight times. I am sure these same people would be taken to the cleaners on a MLM scheme.

I've invested in the markets since the 1980s. I've seen the market boom thru the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s, the 2010s. ALL the way up, every single year, people would cherry pick stats to argue the market is about to collapse when the market was clearly healthy and booming. They were all wrong.

What makes you different?

[Orbitus]

I've invested in the markets since the 1980s. I've seen the market boom thru the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s, the 2010s. ALL the way up, every single year, people would cherry pick stats to argue the market is about to collapse when the market was clearly healthy and booming. They were all wrong.

What makes you different?

Probably because he is right? Something you can't claim to be.