#PanamaPapers

So dodgy. Unfortunately this is just the way the world works. Wherever there is money there will always be a certain amount of corruption due to greed.

dgusic said:

Yes, it's noticeable, I agree. Still, we are all being taught different theoretical models on taxes (for example). Since this is theory we are talking about, it works perfectly, and everybody is happy. For example, I am sure you are familiar with Pigovian tax. In theory, it should work perfectly and correct all negative externalities. But in the real world, it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

If a thing "works" only at ideal (read: arbitrary & imaginary) conditions that a theory requires, what does that say about the usefulness and validity of the theory - other of it being an elaborate mind toy?

The whole "cognitive dissonance" is between the theory and practice.

Click to expand...

You've nailed it. Now consider this: How would you value a physics theory that has a "cognitive dissonance" with reality? How about a chemistry theory that didn't work in practice?

So, what is it that makes one accept the "cognitive dissonance" of things he is being taught in school? Authority. If it's on a book and someone in an official capacity is teaching it, it can't be wrong, right? I've been guilty of this fallacy a ton of times - that's how I know

jazzc said:

If a thing "works" only at ideal (read: arbitrary & imaginary) conditions that a theory requires, what does that say about the usefulness and validity of the theory - other of it being an elaborate mind toy?



You've nailed it. Now consider this: How would you value a physics theory that has a "cognitive dissonance" with reality? How about a chemistry theory that didn't work in practice?

So, what is it that makes one accept the "cognitive dissonance" of things he is being taught in school? Authority. If it's on a book and someone in an official capacity is teaching it, it can't be wrong, right?

I've been guilty of this fallacy a ton of times - that's how I know

Click to expand...

Damn this is one interesting discussion.

Well, other than being an elaborate mind toy, it can be used to expand and develop new ideas and theories which some might even work in the real world. I am way to tired to think of an example, but I am sure there are tons of examples on the Internet relating not just economics, but other fields as well.

A book can always be wrong, but when it comes to college, most of them aren't as they have been rewritten tens of times with slight variations. Now, theories and assumptions in these books can be totally wrong. Again, there are examples I am sure of it. Most authorities have something to back up their knowledge of some subject, a totally-non-forged-legit diploma for example.

You wouldn't be a professor, would you haha ? I mean, you write like one.

dgusic said:

Damn this is one interesting discussion.

Click to expand...

It is indeed, thanks for being a sport - usually I get called names by people who value their ego more than their reason

Well, other than being an elaborate mind toy, it can be used to expand and develop new ideas and theories which some might even work in the real world. I am way to tired to think of an example, but I am sure there are tons of examples on the Internet relating not just economics, but other fields as well.

Click to expand...

So wouldn't it make sense to not apply the "dissonant" theories in practice but instead just use the correct ones at that future point?

Most authorities have something to back up their knowledge of some subject, a totally-non-forged-legit diploma for example.

Click to expand...

There's both a social and practical reason for that. The social is obvious. The practical is that academia is a guild system, much like a medieval guild. If you're going to be taking part in the game, it's really really hard to do it as an outsider, especially in the pre-internet days.

You wouldn't be a professor, would you haha ? I mean, you write like one.

Click to expand...

Just an amateur enthousiast in the philosophy of science. My problem is "how do I know I'm not getting scammed?" and the rabithole for this question is epistemology.

Economics, like Political Science, is a "soft" science. If you see the history of European economics (and political science in general), you'll notice a clear pattern of the "mainstream" thought being aligned with whatever the ruling political class of the time stood for. So especially in this field, one needs to be extremely suspecious of what he is being taught.

jazzc said:

It is indeed, thanks for being a sport - usually I get called names by people who value their ego more than their reason



So wouldn't it make sense to not apply the "dissonant" theories in practice but instead just use the correct ones at that future point?



There's both a social and practical reason for that. The social is obvious. The practical is that academia is a guild system, much like a medieval guild. If you're going to be taking part in the game, it's really really hard to do it as an outsider, especially in the pre-internet days.



Just an amateur enthousiast in the philosophy of science. My problem is "how do I know I'm not getting scammed?" and the rabithole for this question is epistemology.

Economics, like Political Science, is a "soft" science. If you see the history of European economics (and political science in general), you'll notice a clear pattern of the "mainstream" thought being aligned with whatever the ruling political class of the time stood for. So especially in this field, one needs to be extremely suspecious of what he is being taught.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to use the correct theories in pratic, true. But, there are a few reasons why that is not what is happening sometimes. For example, a theory can be wrong, the parameters should be adjusted, etc. We can improve tthe theory by learning and trying to know more.

Huh, interesting what you said about guild system, haven't thought of it before. Even in the internet days, you can't really take on world's leading scientist because "authorative" articles are written by them and they are assumed to be correct.

The only thing that I don't like about EU is the politics. It interefers too much with the economics in general. Since there are 27 (not sure about that) countries in the EU all with a different tax system and standard of living, how can they expect for some countries to take on Euro as official currency. Take Croatia as an example. We have Kuna (1 Euro = 7.5 Kunas). That is an extremely weak currency. Our political officials want to bring Euro because we would be "closer" to Europe which is pure BS and that can't be considered soft science because of mathematical models who are considered "hard" science.

dgusic said:

It makes sense to use the correct theories in pratic, true. But, there are a few reasons why that is not what is happening sometimes. For example, a theory can be wrong, the parameters should be adjusted, etc. We can improve tthe theory by learning and trying to know more.

Click to expand...

That means that the theory used is not used based on its good approximation of reality but for other - non scientific - reasons. In that case, that is just a fancifully dressed theocracy without the metaphysical element.

The only thing that I don't like about EU is the politics. It interefers too much with the economics in general. Since there are 27 (not sure about that) countries in the EU all with a different tax system and standard of living, how can they expect for some countries to take on Euro as official currency. Take Croatia as an example. We have Kuna (1 Euro = 7.5 Kunas). That is an extremely weak currency. Our political officials want to bring Euro because we would be "closer" to Europe which is pure BS and that

Click to expand...

The economic reason countries have been joining the Euro is the low interest rate on borrowing. If (and I'm pulling numbers out of thin air now) the Croation government is borrowing money with 10% rate today, after joining the Eurozone, it will be borrowing money with 2%. Recall how compound interest works, this is an amazingly huge advantage for governements - you get to default your dept much longer down the road. In other words - "free money" that another generation will have to pay, instead of the current one in power.

can't be considered soft science because of mathematical models who are considered "hard" science.

Click to expand...

The use of mathematics doesn't in itself make something a "hard" science. Suppose I (ArchBishop Jazzc of Assisi) create a lovely construct using the most advanced mathematics available today regarding the topology of the angels who power the motion of the celestial bodies all around the universe. Did I just make religion a hard science?

"Soft" and "hard" science has to do with methodological concerns. From the point of natural science (say, physics), no social science can be considered "an equal" because it lacks the "scientific method". You can't do lab experiments in economics.

jazzc said:

That means that the theory used is not used based on its good approximation of reality but for other - non scientific - reasons. In that case, that is just a fancifully dressed theocracy without the metaphysical element.



The economic reason countries have been joining the Euro is the low interest rate on borrowing. If (and I'm pulling numbers out of thin air now) the Croation government is borrowing money with 10% rate today, after joining the Eurozone, it will be borrowing money with 2%. Recall how compound interest works, this is an amazingly huge advantage for governements - you get to default your dept much longer down the road. In other words - "free money" that another generation will have to pay, instead of the current one in power.



The use of mathematics doesn't in itself make something a "hard" science. Suppose I (ArchBishop Jazzc of Assisi) create a lovely construct using the most advanced mathematics available today regarding the topology of the angels who power the motion of the celestial bodies all around the universe. Did I just make religion a hard science?

"Soft" and "hard" science has to do with methodological concerns. From the point of natural science (say, physics), no social science can be considered "an equal" because it lacks the "scientific method". You can't do lab experiments in economics.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. Everyone wants free money, but I am talking about taking Euro as official currency. Here is a real life example. Slovenia! They joined EU in 2004, and I believe they took Euro in 2007 or 2008. Before that, they had "Tolar" which was highly depreciated when comparing to Euro. Their standard of living was poor, and when they took Euro, their economy became more stable, but the standard of living dropped.

Why? Because the prices simply directly converted to Euros, and the salaries dropped. Similar things happen in other countries who have a poor standard of living. While on the other hand, we have the powerhouse of EU, Germany, France, UK (who does not even have Euros).

"Free" money is something entirely different.

That is not quite accurate; you can do lab experiments in economics. It is just a bit different because you have much more variables that you simply can't take in the account. Here is just an abstract of some selected papers that talk about the replicability of lab experiments in economics. As you can see from the paper, reproducibility rate is around 70%.

If anything is done to go after them, it will probably have the blowback of companies just forming from the beginning in lower tax nations rather than in ones such as the USA.

wanna know which overseas companies own property in the uk?

https://suemarcar.cartodb.com/viz/9fc804fa-4b6b-11e5-a73d-0e0c41326911/embed_map

now this could get very interesting!

Panama Papers Whistleblower Issues Statement, Naming and Shaming Failed States and Institutions

"John Doe," the mysterious whistleblower who released the largest-ever leak of confidential documents in world history -- papers from the Panamanian law firm Mossack-Fonseca, a key player in the offshore dark money industry -- has published their first-ever public statement.

The first thing you'll notice in reading the 1,400 word manifesto is that Doe is eloquent. Like Snowden and a few others from the society of modern whistleblowing, Doe writes beautifully, passionately, and intelligently about their motives.

They have clearly spent a lot of time thinking about the information they had access to, and what it meant for the world, and what it would mean for them to come forward with it, risking everything.

Doe offers a general critique of secretive finance capitalism, and cites specifics from the Panama Papers showing that Mossack-Fonseca wasn't just involved in helping the wealthy avoid taxes and starve countries of the treasure they needed to provide the most basic services -- they also knowingly laundered money used by rich paedophiles to traffick in 13 year old sex slaves.

Doe isn't content to discuss their general grievances with corruption: in laser-focused specific detail, they cite policies and actions from specific governments and politicians (the UK Conservative party, David Cameron, NZ Prime Minister John Key, a few others) and how their hypocrisy motivated them to act.

He also discusses the role of whistleblowing in modern society. Running through the punishments visited upon leakers like Snowden (but also Luxleaks' Antoine Deltour and UBS leaker Bradley Birkenfeld), Doe says that they chose not to go public specifically because they believed that the same leaders who'd made the moral compromises that enabled the corruption of offshore finance were also committed to destroying the lives of those who came forward with information about the most urgent, terrible crimes.

Doe cheers on the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for refusing to share the raw Panama Papers with law enforcement, as is fitting for independent journalists, and goes on to offer to turn over those documents to law enforcement independently, but with the caveats about the risks to their own freedom.

Doe also disavows being a spy of any kind, saying that they never worked or contracted for any spy agency or government.

http://boingboing.net/2016/05/07/panama-papers-whistleblower-is.html