Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Did you actually mean this?
|
No, I got it the wrong way around. I wasn't paying attention to what I was writing.
And (to Phang) politics and economics are completely different. Economics should be able to answer the questions simply and accurately of "what would happen to inflation if I burnt this £20 note, or indeed £2m". It isn't a hypothetical subject when dealing with simple scenarios like that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure if physicists could agree on what the climate change effects would be if you burnt a £20 but that doesn't make physics rubbish either. It just shows how complex these systems are especially when you're trying to determine the effects of extremely small scale actions.
|
I'm not sure if you're just trying to be complicated by comparing physics to economics as they're completely different subjects but ok sure you're right physicists couldn't all agree on what burning a £20 note would do to the environment.
The difference is that economists SHOULD be able to agree. It's a simple hypothetical situation and can easily be worked out by making the £20 into £2m or £2b or even a gazillion pounds. The actual amount of cash doesn't matter as the effect on the economy would just be affected in different proportions.
Anyway the fact that people are quoting from dictionary.com shows this debate/argument/discussion has descended into depths which it can't be rescued from.