A Thai court has ordered the dissolution of the reformist party which won the most seats and votes in last year’s election - but was blocked from forming a government.
The ruling also banned Move Forward’s charismatic, young former leader Pita Limjaroenrat and 10 other senior figures from politics for 10 years.
The verdict from the Constitutional Court was expected, after its ruling in January that Move Forward’s campaign promise to change royal defamation laws was unconstitutional.
My point about convexity being a handily-written escape clause was not to say that economists invented it out of whole-cloth, it’s to point out that it’s tautological. It’s basically saying, “Prices follow our law in all of the cases where they follow our law.” So it’s not a law then, is it? It’s an observation of extremely limited utility that just so happens to provide a justifying narrative: “our law says the market will be stable,” when we see the absolute opposite in many places.
And if you feel like you’ve seen it in person, then again the data should exist. Again I’d say if you’re saying this is an example of the effect, without seeing the data, then you’re admitting out loud that you are just confirming your own preconcieved ideas rather than seeing any real evidence. These are statements of faith, not science. Orthodox economists would be proud.
I’m not sure what you mean about the sombrero potential only being partially observed. It is a principle only, and you could observe it fully by simply making a sombrero shape and putting a ball in the middle and observing how it falls multiple times. That’s literally what the concept entails. It’s analogous to supply & demand in that the graphs are merely illustrative and it is only applicable in very specific situations. The difference is that supply & demand is presented as a foundational and ubiquitous law to high-school students, whereas the sombrero potential is presented honestly.
As for the “don’t try to time the market” advice, if you’re right about that then someone should tell all the real estate speculators that are leaving extremely expensive real estate empty because they can’t rent it out and don’t want to sell at a low price. It would help our housing shortage immensely. Either they don’t exist, or your story about that isn’t complete.
I don’t need you to look into Australia - price cycles and boom-bust cycles are well-documented economic phenomena. I linked an Australian case because I’m familiar with it.
And to the extent that other sciences engage in politics over actual science, they are also being unscientific. However I’ve never heard of a scientific discipline where there is an “orthodox” school, except in economics. It’s the orthodox school that I have a problem with. Supply & demand is just emblematic of that issue.
You can see the model do that, but not the actual quantum fields. The transition is supposed to have happened irreversibly once in the instants following the big bang.
It was never taught where I went, but that could be. High school teachers should knock it off, if so. It seems to work exactly as theorised in most sectors, bulk commodities being a common example, but there’s definitely other sectors that are broken, some of which I mentioned.
I’m a fan of regulation to address that. So are both orthodox and most heterodox schools, to various degrees.
I’m sure someone is dumb enough to try it, but I’m actually not convinced it’s widespread. In Canada, we literally just don’t have enough houses for a first-world nation of our population - which has been measured - and all of our tradespeople are swamped. (Sorry if I brought that up already, this has been a long-running thread)
Hmm, now that is a good point. There’s various small offshoots of anthropology and psychology, some of which are questionable (there’s people that still use Freud), but nobody really divides it up like that. Alright, you’ve sold me on economics probably having especially bad lab politics.
Right, so the quantum field model is designed to solve the assymetry paradox, but it’s just unconfirmed speculation. It’s a hypothesis, barely a theory, not a law. It’s discussed honestly for the most part, unlike the way orthodox economics discusses supply & demand. Just because you can find something roughly analogous in a hard science doesn’t make the problem substantively the same.
And do you really think supply & demand isn’t taught as a law? We hear the phrase “the law of supply & demand” bandied about whenever anyone does any pop-economics. Do you seriously not encounter that?
And you actually think housing speculation doesn’t happen on a wide scale? Like… what? Again, have you heard people talk about economics before? You said you understood a good amount of it, but you’re denying that housing speculation is real?
https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/property-speculation-to-continue-boom-but-will-a-bust-follow
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26457/w26457.pdf
The 2008 recession was literally a housing speculation bubble. I really don’t understand where you get off saying speculation isn’t a thing.
Also, in Canada, your tradespeople are swamped but there are about 1.3 million empty houses.
Here’s a quote that confirms what I just told you:
Like sure, there might be a housing shortage in the market but not in reality. In reality it’s a hoarding problem. We know from the pandemic that governments could house everyone if they simply made it a policy priority, but they don’t.
And as for the “lab politics” of economics, I’m glad you’ve been able to see that issue, and I think that’s a good term for it. The lab politics doesn’t come from nowhere. Sciences advance in a way that is exploitable by capital. When someone discovers a new kind of technology usually it can be turned into a profit. Often the details are obscured by charlatans looking to make a quick buck - see any tech hype cycle for an example of this - but interfering with the scientific process is usually going to be detrimental to the aims of capitalists.
Social sciences are a little different, usually capital can kind of just ignore the policies proposed by social scientists, even if they can cause minor problems for them.
For economics though, when someone like Marx comes along and points out that capitalists are stealing value from the working class and that working class can unite to overthrow their oppressors because in reality those oppressors create nothing and they depend on us, then that has real teeth. That causes problems, of the revolutionary variety. The ruling class has to respond to that, so they will use their influence to fund think tanks, sponsor economics departments that are friendly to them and torpedo institutions that say things they don’t like.
Richard Wolff talks about this:
https://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/25/watch_extended_interview_with_economist_richard_wolff_on_how_marxism_influences_his_work
Just like kings used to, they have raised up their own class of priests to proclaim to the commoners that their power and wealth is justified and good, and we should all bow to their blessed interpretation of the mystical movements of the market. That’s why they don’t do science, and they quibble on the minutiae of the interpretations of long-dead texts, just like the priesthood did, because they can’t work in the realm of science, because it would destroy their entire project.
Speculation happens, sure. I don’t buy that it drives things way out of equilibrium in the long run. As far as I can tell from a skim, neither do your sources.
I also hear about “Murphy’s law”, which is self-evidently not (literally) true in all cases. If you’re teaching an actual Econ 101-type course and you don’t mention market failure, you’re teaching it badly.
Not exactly. A drop in housing prices triggered it IIRC, but the actual chain of dominoes played out on paper in financial instruments.
In an ideal market the big banks would have just been replaced with new ones who take less risks of that sort, but they were too big to fail. That’s definitely a problem, but I don’t really know enough to comment on what the fix should be intelligently; banking economics is on a whole other level.
The total shortfall is in the neighborhood of 3.5 million units.
There’s always some, just because people move unpredictably - a “frictional” amount. I’m sure someone somewhere is sitting on an empty house for no good reason, but they’re losing money, so I doubt it’s a lot by comparison to the frictional amount.
Homeless people aren’t let in for a really sad reason that has nothing to do with necessity: few voters care and nonprofits can’t raise enough money - or alternately donated space - without government help. A lot of those people have “high needs”, and are at risk of causing damage or just leaving a mess, so it’s not like it’s free to let them stay in a building until the next tenant shows up.
Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for politics. Look at the USSR and all the various times they flip-flopped on whatever issue or person. Or Republican Spain and it’s many warring factions, if that’s more your idea of non-capitalism.
It’s true that some scientists are on the hook to say things convenient for a sponsor. The nice thing is that a valid observation will stand the test of time regardless of who makes it. Marx made a huge impact on social sciences, and you don’t have to agree with him on any particular thing (left or right wing - he was still a Victorian white man) to appreciate economics as a driver of history. The same goes for marginalism and friends.
Your link isn’t talking about actual housing supply, it is talking about affordability. If you think that addresses my point, you don’t understand what I’m saying. Like on a fundamental level, you don’t get it.
And you keep throwing up vague, unsourced opinions like:
Like, okay? You don’t buy it, but you’re not going to bother much more with it, you’re not going to make an argument, it’s your opinion so you can just handwave anything I say away. If you’re not convinced, fine, don’t be, but there’s literally nothing for me to respond to here.
This is incredibly frustrating. I don’t even know what your point is anymore, you seem to just be knee-jerk arguing with every point no matter how weak or irrelevant your response is, and you seem content to throw up smokescreens of details rather than actually engage with anything in a substantive manner.
You seemed responsive for most of this, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but this is going in circles and you’re not actually taking on board anything I’m saying. Just focus for a second, deal with the speculation thing. Make a point. If you can’t do that, I’m not going to keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That probably means we’ve reached the end of the useful period of conversation. It happens, human working memory is small and language is slow, relative to the complexities of the things we’re talking about. I feel like it’s been pretty successful anyway; my mind has been changed about a few things, you seemed to like the yardsale model.
If we were to keep going, we’d need to rely heavily on data. Yeah, speculation resulting in “few” empty houses is my stance. Your stance is the opposite. It’s empirical, and no amount of abstract arguing can answer it. Ditto for supply and demand in general - you know the abstract arguments about entrepreneurs not leaving money on the table already, and you’re not convinced. The trick, of course, is that this isn’t an economics journal, and we’re not full time economists (hetero or orthodox). That limits how much data we can use to not enough.
I thought markets were garbage once too, and the thing that convinced me, besides the alternate explanation for billionaires I shared, was just having to budget out things myself. Everything runs at cost plus investor dividends, and every investment gives about the same return per principle, assuming similar risk profiles. That’s a life experience I can’t share, though.
Just in the name of explaining myself: I didn’t actually check the methodology again. What I’ve seen in the past is an actual measure of the physical housing stock, and then a comparison of it per capita to other developed countries. It’s smaller.
“We” haven’t “reached the end of the useful period of conversation”, you have reached the end of your capacity or willingness to engage with what I’m saying, and I’ve laid out very clearly how you’re displaying that, and instead of engaging with the points, you fell back into passive-voiced vague notions about human working memory and the speed of language, drawing on sciency language to lend credibility to some absurd notion that nobody could possibly be expected have this conversation, but you just made that up.
We’re not at the limits of human mental capacity, you’re doing specific things that I’ve pointed out, with details, and instead of engaging with what I said in any specific way you’ve done more vague waffle that says nothing.
And if you didn’t even check what you were sending me, why are you so confident about everything you’re saying?
My sources gave very specific numbers -which I directly highlighted with quotes - about the state of the housing supply compared to the unhoused population that you completely ignored in favour of economic rationalism.
This is precisely the kind of thing orthodox economists do, and this is how economics students are taught to think. It’s a real shame, it looks like your critical thinking skills have been pretty badly sabotaged by miseducation. I’m sure you’re intelligent in many ways, but intelligence is domain specific, and if you don’t learn the kind of rigour it takes to think critically, then you won’t be able to.
This is not my first internet argument, by far. It’s not even my first that’s run this long. This always happens. Maybe I’m just dumb, or domain-specific dumb, but the fact is that political debate never works, with me involved or not. The first thing they tell you if you’re door knocking for a candidate is not to bother with debates, and you bet the politicians themselves don’t try and convert each other. Honestly, the progress we have made is pretty extraordinary.
You might be annoyed I’m not engaging with your original point, but be assured it’s deliberate. (And done without any ill-will towards you)
The thing about mental capacity is my own personal explanation for how that works, despite the fact I don’t think either of us is incapable of or unwilling to understand the truth, whatever it may be, and any logical process should have a deterministic outcome.
If you’re frustrated, sorry. I’m not worth it though. Per earlier stages of conversation, I might know people with wealth and/or power, but none of them respect my opinion.
I did engage it. The gap appears to be bigger than that (I know, you don’t believe my source), and I went into more detail about why unhoused people aren’t housed despite it being materially very easy to manage.
I didn’t read the entire paper again, because there’s only so many hours in the day. Same reason I’m not going to go looking for what I was actually thinking of now. Sorry, it’s not personal.
For what it’s worth, my college education was in pure math.
That’s literally not what I said, I said something direct and specific, something you can read in the first paragraph of that source. I believed what they were saying and I repeated it to you. I read your source back to you and you misunderstood.
This is the problem - you clearly aren’t engaging in what’s being said. If you did so directly and specifically, then maybe you could get farther, but you dissolve things into nonspecific drivel, to the point it’s just either wrong or meaningless.
It’s like if I asked you, “What’s 2+2?” and you replied, “The nature of addition is involved in the very definition of numbers, which comes from set theory. Entire books have been written on this subject before we can even define the number 2 and I couldn’t possibly cover it all, it’s just so complicated.”
Like sure, maybe that’s all true, but motherfucker, what is 2+2? You go broad and vague and mysterious with things that sometimes have simple answers.
Maybe that’s why you feel it’s pointless having conversations online. I certainly don’t find that, but I try to stay focused on the points and deal with things directly, and when someone is wasting my time I tell them so and I disengage.
Again, you seemed responsive to what I was saying at first, but when you’re talking about the limits of the “speed of language” in response to a request for details, you are clearly looking for an out. I wouldn’t spend this much time talking about this with someone if I thought it was a waste of time. I’m making the effort to give you this feedback because you’ve shown the ability to be responsive and I don’t sense any ill-will. But if you find that “this always happens”, then maybe you need to take a good look at why, and what it is that you’re doing that might cause that.