Apparently he has zero data from Germany before the unification (think Bismarck not glasnost). So this will probably be quick. Guessing the war thing wasn’t great for the economy.
The more I think about this, the more I need an economist to tell me this isn’t how they actually work and what they actually believe. Because that’s just bananas. First let’s “simplify” a complex system into a formal model and then you reason in it, maybe run some simulations and then… you believe it? And this idea of believing in a “market” as some sort of entity that will not only stabilize into a state, but that that state is somehow “good”, or even “optimal”. That’s bananas. That’s a fucking religion.
If this guy doesn’t soon discuss how his data is skewed because it doesn’t cover large parts of the population that were to varying degrees not allowed to own land, inherit, vote or work freely, I’m going to buy this book in physical form just to stab it.
“Look at me! I have government data going back centuries in Europe and the US!”
Ah yes. The centuries were all wealth was in the hands of… *checks notes* ah yes, white men, that’s right. The prototypical human. Yes. We know that from medicine… carry on.
Oh wow, this will be rough. This is the book form of when people write a thread rather than a pithy post because they expect someone to go “well actually” so they go through every minute detail to make sure there is no case uncovered.
Except, in this case, bias is already creeping through. “Inequality is not necessarily bad in itself, the key question is to decide whether it is justified”.
I’m starting on Piketty’s Capital, but it’s long and even just from the introduction I am getting it will probably be less “entertaining”. The writing is a bit dry. So I might mix in the Debt book too.
This thread might actually end up being even more grumpy than the Team Topologies book thread. And it is depressing to say that this book is actually more coherent than Team Topologies. That says a lot about how absolutely terrible that book was.
Oh wow this makes me grumpy. He is doing it. He has already in the freaking introduction reduced everything to a tiny set of variables and simple math, and then he made a graph and made sweeping predictive statements based on it. This field is bullshit.
He is actually going to go on through a whole book where the whole thing is going to be about making predictions for developing nations based on historical data from now “developed” nations whose whole gig was to rob the rest of the planet of their resources…
To clarify, since there seems to be some confusion, I am not judging any of this on ideological basis. I’m judging it on methodology. I am trying to figure out if economics is as weak methodology-wise as my impression currently is. This book is not helping to alleviate that impression.
These people made the big mistake of thinking their field was like physics. Though tbf to physics they have way more advanced math and wasaaay more variables and waaaaaaaaaay more understanding of what it means to simplify by removing variables.
“Look, if I reduce reality to two variables, then I can make graphs ok!!! Then I can just extrapolate WISDOM from that and go and MAKE ACTUAL CHANGES IN THE REAL WORLD. With fucking confidence! Look at my power point!!”
Yes, I am grumpy. I have so much book left you have no idea.