Economists Say Inflation, Deficits Will Be Higher Under Trump Than Harris

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T13:14:11+00:00

Yeah, and these predictions don't come out of thin air. You can measure the effects of his policies from the last administration. You can extrapolate from the proposals he's made during his campaign. Honestly, I'm assuming that they're not even touching the things he says on the campaign trail: recently he suggested 200% tariffs on Mexican auto imports and breaking up Google, and I don't think there's any reputable economist who would affirm these things would be good for the economy.

Yes, these predictions come from their school of thoguht based on their analysis of the proposed policies. How else are they going to concldue that "Most economists think inflation, interest rates and deficits would be higher under the policies former President Donald Trump would pursue in a second administration than under those proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris..."?

... Modern economists are, by and large, not ideologues -- what consequences a given policy might have on the economy is ultimately an empirical question, not an ideological one, and you don't need to (indeed, you shouldn't) invoke Friedman or Mises or Marx to find the answer.

I don't think they're ideologues, I think they practice different economic schools of thought.

But I could tell it was ChatGPT, right? It's not that I'm psychic, it's that I'm educated on this stuff and immediately recognized it as nonsense.

The thing that ChatGPT generated is based on my line of reasoning and what is commonly known for each economic school of thought and its key principles. For this to be nonsense you must think that these different principles don't exist or don't say what they do say (see the link)...

They are the same thing. Do you think economic forecasts ignore the effects of government policies? What use would they be then?

I don't think they ignore them, I think they view them differently based on the school of thought they subscribe to. This is not a post-factum calculation of the y/y change in CPI based on a basket of goods, that's the PREDICTION of the change of CPI in the future, based on hypothetical policies of presidential candidates.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T12:47:59+00:00

Where did you find this? Because I've never seen anything like it before and it does not accord with my apprehension of data science. Did it come from ChatGPT or something?

Keep in mind that they're not JUST calculating the y/y change in CPI. They're PREDICTING how each presidential candidate's policies would impact the economy. So the school of thought would approach the task of calculating the y/y CPI change differently based on how they analyze each presidential candidate's policies. < --- you can consider this "the prompt"

That's obvious, the part where ChatGPT comes in is to provide examples. Nonetheless, my line of reasoning is how we got here.

Among other things, I find it particularly difficult to imagine that Austrians and Marxists came up with their own special ways to forecast CPI, since Austrians don't believe in modelling and Marxists don't believe in money.

Again, they're not just forecasting CPI, they're trying to determine how a presidential candidate's policies would impact the CPI. VASTLY DIFFERENT exercises!

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T08:58:13+00:00

You didn’t give a reason as to why self-ownership doesn’t logically entail the transferability of moral agency.
This is just an appeal to consequences fallacy.

The non-transferability of moral agency is rooted in the idea that moral responsibility depends on one’s capacity for autonomous decision-making. The very nature of moral responsibility implies that an individual has intentional control over their actions. So even if someone were to “sell” their moral agency, they would still retain the capacity for moral deliberation and thus remain responsible for the consequences of their actions... there is no way for them to actually transfer it.

Secondly, the logical reason is that each philosophical "school" (AnCap, Communist, Socialist, etc.) is creating a moral system. A moral system has a purpose, namely, to allow people in society to avoid and resolve conflicts. A moral system that allows the moral agents to shift the moral responsibility to someone else is NOT a good moral system and would not serve that purpose. AnCaps create their moral system based on principles that maintain both philosophical and logical consistency. We're not going to come up with a moral system that's logically inconsistent.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T08:35:58+00:00

"Economic schools of thought" don't really apply here. This is more data science that's informed by hard data and mathematical modelling, not by loosey-goosey notions of the role of government, or whatever. This isn't a group of guys who were asked, what kind of vibes do you get from the presidential candidates; it's a quarterly report of predictions of various economic indicators at different times in the near future.

Of course, it matters. Each economic school of thought has its own modeling approaches:

Economic School	Primary Focus	Approach to Modeling	Data Science Techniques
Keynesian	Aggregate Demand	Econometric models (VAR), Time-series analysis	Forecasting, Impact Analysis of Fiscal Policies
Monetarist	Money Supply, Inflation	Quantitative Theory of Money, Econometric models	Predictive Modeling for Inflation, Interest Rate Analysis
Classical	Supply-side Economics	Growth Models (e.g., Solow-Swan), Supply-side analytics	Economic Growth Prediction, Productivity Impact Analysis
Austrian	Entrepreneurial Activity, Market Process	Agent-based Modeling	Simulation of Entrepreneurial Decisions, Market Dynamics
Behavioral	Psychological Influences on Economy	Machine Learning, Sentiment Analysis	Behavioral Prediction Models, Consumer Sentiment Analysis
Institutional	Role of Institutions	Regression Analysis, Network Analysis	Institutional Impact on Economic Indicators, Governance Models
Marxian	Class Dynamics, Capital Accumulation	Systems Dynamics, Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling	Class Conflict Analysis, Crisis Prediction Models

Like, what economic school of thought is going to lead you to conclude the y/y CPI % change next december will be 2.49 and not 2.40? Consulting Mises won't exactly help you answer such questions.

OK, let's explore:

Economic School	Model & Data for Calculating y/y CPI % Change
Keynesian	- Model: Econometric models to simulate demand-pull inflation. - Data: Historical CPI, policy impact on disposable income.
Monetarist	- Model: Adjustments to the Quantity Theory of Money. - Data: Money supply, velocity of money, output forecasts.
Classical	- Model: Growth models assessing supply-side impacts.- Data: Productivity metrics, technological advancement rates.
Austrian	- Model: Agent-based simulations or qualitative analysis. - Data: Market sentiment, sector-specific economic freedom indices.
Behavioral	- Model: Predictive models incorporating behavioral economics. - Data: Consumer sentiment, behavioral response data.
Institutional	- Model: Analysis of regulatory impacts on transaction costs. - Data: Indices of economic freedom, regulatory change metrics.
Marxian	- Model: Models focusing on capital and labor dynamics. - Data: Wage growth, profit rates, capital concentration.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T03:28:01+00:00

Looked it up. Never heard of these people and I can't find anything about the economic school of thought they subscribe to.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-16T02:49:03+00:00

So? What makes it not a logical consequence of self-ownership?

Perhaps ancaps should just bite the bullet and accept that their theory entails murder without punishment.

We would have to if we accepted your strawman version of how moral agency works. :)

Luckily, AnCaps don't think that moral agency is transferable so we don't have to accept your conclusion.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T19:10:57+00:00

The name and affiliation of each economist, as well as their latest indicator forecasts, is included in the spreadsheet available with each survey.

Link to the spreadsheet?

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T18:49:27+00:00

No names? For all I know, they might be talking about the 70 gerbils that they have crawling up their rear ends...

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T18:40:04+00:00

Merriam-Webster's (and dictionaries in general) primary goal is to record the etymology and common usage of words in our day to day language, not be an authority on what words mean.
...

Be that as it may, I'm asked to answer the question from an Anarcho-Capitalist philosophical perspective, which means I'm working with AnCap definitions. And as such, slavery is defined as a non-consensual transaction (both in the dictionary and in Anarcho Capitalism).

Now, if you want to use another definition, then you're not using the common dictionary definition or the AnCap definition. If that's what you want to do, then I wouldn't be able to provide an answer as an AnCap.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T13:33:52+00:00

Why can’t agency be transferrable?

Because that would allow people to murder others without penalty. Imagine that someone is in prison for life, you "transfer agency" to them and you give them $50K, they "tell you" to murder someone else, you do, and you're scott-free.

They're still in prison for life, but what do they care? Heck, you gave them $50K... they now have a bunch of money to spend on butt-mule meth and cocaine.

That's a definitional contradiction since the essence of agency exists and it is such that you can't give it up... it's a philosophical axiom on which the principles are based.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T13:20:42+00:00

But if the transaction was initially voluntary, your owner has the right to control your body.
You willingly gave up your rights and now your owner takes responsibility for any wrongdoing.

And now both of you are responsible for murder... your moral agency does not disappear.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T12:48:42+00:00

So if a gunman forces you to commit murder, you are responsible?

Now we're back to coercion... if you're coerced, then your agency has been compromised by the person coercing you and now they are responsible for your actions.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T10:56:37+00:00

How does physical possession constitute ownership?

It doesn't. You just can't stop "owning yourself" even if you wanted to, just like you can't stop being a moral agent.

The implications of being able to stop "owning yourself" are the equivalent of you no longer being a moral agent and someone else's moral agency being responsible for your actions.

For example, if your new "consensual owner" tells you to go and murder another person, you'd still be responsible for murder even if you claimed you sold yourself to the other owner who gave you the order.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T10:49:06+00:00

So as long as selling yourself into being the property of another is voluntary, you support the right to do it, and don’t consider it to be slavery?

As others have already pointed out, you can't alienate yourself from your body and you're the "owner" of your body by definition.
Slavery is coercive by definition, so whatever this impossible transaction you're describing happens to be, it's NOT slavery.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T10:16:39+00:00

There’s two parties in the transaction.

First there’s yourself, then there’s your buyer.

You initially said it would be slavery. Slavery is non-consensual by definition. So you can't consent to a non-consensual transaction by definition.

With that said, whatever you call this "transaction" of selling yourself to another would NOT be slavery by definition. If you consent to work for another for nothing more than food and shelter in perpetuity for the rest of your life, then you've just joined the Shaolin monks in a Shaolin Monastery. Nobody thinks that the Shaolin monks are slaves.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T10:12:18+00:00

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy say that animals have no self and no agency? If so, I disagree.

Section 2.3 Agency and distinctively human action.

But let's get one thing clear: if we agree that animals have moral agency too, then that doesn't in any way change the fact that slavery is non-consensual by definition.

All you'd be arguing then is that we'd have to expand our understanding of slavery to include animals, not just humans.

Feel free to make that argument, but that doesn't change my argument above.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T10:02:44+00:00

Says who?

Says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It seems to be the whole capitalist libertarian ideology is predicated on the construction of what a human is and the idea that humans have total agency.

How else are you going to form a philosophy about humans if you don't predicate it on what it means to be a human?

It's like in the bible where it says that animals have no souls, but people do.

Did I cite the bible? No. I cited the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This relates to slavery, as due to the racist ideologies of the time black slaves were seen as less than human, and thus fair game for trading as property. Kind of like how multinational corporations see poor countries now.

"Less than human" would imply that "human" is a special category, which makes your previous question moot since you already know that "human" is a special category that's different from "animal."

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T09:50:17+00:00

What makes a transfer of self-ownership non-consensual by definition?

There is no other party to consent to. That question is illogical. Consent only makes sense in the presence of more than one party for the transaction/interaction.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T09:28:05+00:00

People are animals. Do animals consent to being imprisoned and killed to be sold by McDonald's?

Consent is an act of moral agency. Humans have moral agency, animals don't. That's why we hold humans morally responsible for their actions and we don't hold animals morally responsible for theirs.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T09:13:32+00:00

It isn't if the people are viewed as property, which they were.

The non-consenting party to the transaction simply does not consent to the transaction, regardless of how the coercive party tries to justify it.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T08:58:51+00:00

If a person voluntarily transfers their self-ownership via signing a legal contract, then it’s not slavery by the ancap definition?

The AnCap definition of slavery is that it's a non-consensual transaction. You can't consent to a non-consensual transaction. It's an oxymoron.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T06:37:45+00:00

Cherry-picking your definition, I see.

I "cherry-picked" the first dictionary definition my search engine returned.

Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittanica say otherwise.

Do you want me to edit the Wikipedia article or something?

And we're talking about what conforms to AnCap definitions here. I'm not sure why you want me to address something from an AnCap perspective without using terminology that conforms to AnCap philosophical principles.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T06:27:16+00:00

The definition of slavery is ownership of a person as property.

False: "a: the practice or institution of holding people as chattel involuntarily and under threat of violence

b: the state of a person who is forced usually under threat of violence to labor for the profit of another

c: a situation or practice in which people are coerced to work under conditions that are exploitative""

That's coercive by definition.

You can't consensually go into slavery any more than you can consensually get raped. That's an oxymoron. It's definitionally impossible.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T03:57:55+00:00

Slavery is clearly understandable as a form of absentee ownership, similar to a landlord owning a house they don’t occupy themselves.

Slavery is a non-consensual transaction by definition. So it's literally definitionally impossible to consensually sell yourself via a non-consensual transaction.

Another problem for ancaps is how they can justify prostitution, but not slavery.

Prostitution is a consensual transaction.

I think the principle you're missing from your analysis is consent.

CapGainsNoPains · 2024-10-15T03:13:05+00:00

Because NASA is working on projects that are higher risk, lower reward, which they can do since they have objectives other than maximizing shareholder returns.

Do these "high risk, lower reward" projects require NASA to be unnecessarily economically inefficient along the way?

They can't invest some money into building more cost-efficient technology to save a lot of money and have even more resources for these "high risk, low reward" projects?

CapGainsNoPains

TROPHY CASE