18 hours ago, Barmaley said:

Will it be accurate to say that the main reason that people are not trying to discuss important topis that the discussions would not be fruitful since of truth discovery is not achievable through such means as professional public collaborative forum?

Considering that the majority of discussions you found point to an anti-tariff slant, doesn't it suggest that for some topics there is, in fact, consensus? I.e. if there is little contra it is likely that there are simply no good models to support it. That is ultimately how consensus look like. If that is not what you are looking for, could you elaborate?

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Considering that the majority of discussions you found point to an anti-tariff slant, doesn't it suggest that for some topics there is, in fact, consensus? I.e. if there is little contra it is likely that there are simply no good models to support it. That is ultimately how consensus look like. If that is not what you are looking for, could you elaborate?

I realize my initial question may not have been communicated clearly, which likely explains why I didn’t receive insightful suggestions. Let me rephrase it:

In a public forum restricted to qualified experts, is it possible to reach a definitive conclusion—even on a narrowly defined topic—without lingering reasonable doubts? I’ll use Trump’s tariffs as an example of such a focused subject.

Defining Success: The First Hurdle
A logical starting point would be to establish criteria for success. One straightforward proposal might be: Tariffs are successful if they increase the aggregate wealth of the United States. However, critics could argue that since tariffs function as a regressive tax (disproportionately affecting lower-income groups), a scenario might arise where the top 1% grows richer while 5% of Americans face severe deprivation to the point of starvation—even if total wealth rises. Would we still deem this a "success"? Other complexities (too numerous to list here since I suspect that the posts here have allocated a limited space) further complicate the selection of the criteria. Even defining the core objective of the discussion proves difficult, and each tangential issue would branch into exponentially more subdivisions, rendering conclusive agreement unlikely. This, I suspect, is why many discussions are performative—participants engage without expecting resolution.

50 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

In a public forum restricted to qualified experts, is it possible to reach a definitive conclusion—even on a narrowly defined topic—without lingering reasonable doubts? I’ll use Trump’s tariffs as an example of such a focused subject.

In a narrowly defined topic, for sure. Take medical health experts and ask them whether there is a net benefit of population-wide measles vaccination in terms of overall health burden, you will get very clear answers from actual experts. The reason is that this question is a) anchored on a set of metrics that are well defined (health burden is perhaps a bit vague but is used here as a proxy of a whole range of measures that can be used) b) is based well-understood mechanisms, and c) has a host of both, research as well as empirical data that clearly point at a conclusion.

 

50 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

Defining Success: The First Hurdle
A logical starting point would be to establish criteria for success. One straightforward proposal might be: Tariffs are successful if they increase the aggregate wealth of the United States. However, critics could argue that since tariffs function as a regressive tax (disproportionately affecting lower-income groups), a scenario might arise where the top 1% grows richer while 5% of Americans face severe deprivation to the point of starvation—even if total wealth rises. Would we still deem this a "success"? Other complexities (too numerous to list here since I suspect that the posts here have allocated a limited space) further complicate the selection of the criteria. Even defining the core objective of the discussion proves difficult, and each tangential issue would branch into exponentially more subdivisions, rendering conclusive agreement unlikely. This, I suspect, is why many discussions are performative—participants engage without expecting resolution.

This is not a good example of an attempt at a very narrow space. The issue here is "success". You could instead ask the question: how do tariffs impact aggregate wealth? This could result in much more targeted arguments. Also, while I do not have specific expertise, I doubt that there are many economists who would argue that broad tariffs are somehow going to increase aggregate wealth. The negative impact on the economy are fairly well-known but I have not seen an honest argument how it would increase wealth.

Also, things are usually not a just a simple pro and con, but about what possible mechanisms are there and what the impacts of these issues are. As mentioned already, the more we know, the easier it is to form a consensus. There is no good reason to assume that a consensus can never be formed, we have in fact many of those.

Ask hundreds and you’ll often find consensus, but you’ll also often find a handful of outliers who feel differently. Those individuals are referred to as unrepresentative. 

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is not a good example of an attempt at a very narrow space. The issue here is "success". You could instead ask the question: how do tariffs impact aggregate wealth?

Indeed, but "wealth" is equally ambiguous.

The variable, I think, is 'n' days into the future I can survive in the current culture; the cash rich are very well insulated, but certainly not immune to the n'th degree...

20 hours ago, Barmaley said:

In a public forum restricted to qualified experts, is it possible to reach a definitive conclusion—even on a narrowly defined topic—without lingering reasonable doubts?

Define “definitive”

70% consensus? 90%? If you require 100% and the pool is sufficiently large it’s unlikely, since even in hard sciences there are credentialed people with expertise who disagree with mainstream views. In something more nebulous, like economics (where there are “schools of thought”) I’d say it was much harder.

(Economics being a field that prompted the joke about predicting 9 of the last 4 recessions.)

Define “definitive”

70% consensus? 90%? If you require 100% and the pool is sufficiently large it’s unlikely, since even in hard sciences there are credentialed people with expertise who disagree with mainstream views. In something more nebulous, like economics (where there are “schools of thought”) I’d say it was much harder.

(Economics being a field that prompted the joke about predicting 9 of the last 4 recessions.)

I will define it this way:

We present arguments pro and con. Then we select randomly reasonable large number of people with sufficient credentials and ask them to read it. The condition is that they are reading the whole board first time but they may have some previous thoughts on the subject. If over 90% of such readers take one side we call it "definitive". If over 80% agree we may label it "convincing etc.

In a public forum restricted to qualified experts, is it possible to reach a definitive conclusion—even on a narrowly defined topic—without lingering reasonable doubts? 

Yes of course it is possible to reach a conclusion in the way you subsequently defined.

That is a particularly useless, possibly misleading situation since that conclusion may still be flawed.

I have already given an example of this, which you have not replied to.

But a thought struck me, would the resultant contraction actually help the planet and our ability to survive the economist?

I'm not sure that it will help the planet much since the people most insulated from any economic collapse are the ones who consume the most resources.

But a thought struck me, would the resultant contraction actually help the planet and our ability to survive the economist?

I'm not sure that it will help the planet much since the people most insulated from any economic collapse are the ones who consume the most resources.

No-one is insulated from every economic collapse...

No-one is insulated from every economic collapse...

So you are claiming everyone will be affected equally? I don't see where I ever wrote that anyone would be unaffected.

So you are claiming everyone will be affected equally? I don't see where I ever wrote that anyone would be unaffected.

Nope, I'm claiming that you don't understand how...

Nope, I'm claiming that you don't understand how...

You can claim anything you like but it's a fact that carbon levels (and probably most other kinds of pollution) increased every year since the levels have been measured regardless of whether there has been an economic downturn or not. The sole possible exception may have been a brief time during the covid-19 pandemic when basically everything in the world was shut down so I don't see your argument that an economic downturn might be good for the environment as being particularly strong.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by npts2020

You can claim anything you like but it's a fact that carbon levels (and probably most other kinds of pollution) increased every year since the levels have been measured regardless of whether there has been an economic downturn or not. The sole possible exception may have been a brief time during the covid-19 pandemic when basically everything in the world was shut down so I don't see your argument that an economic downturn might be good for the environment as being particularly strong.

Indeed, you're proving my point, 'the economist' doesn't care about feeding people, bc they assume their fiscal insulation contains a calorific value.

I'm not trying to claim anything, other than the obvious, stupidity clause included in it's mantra "eternal growth is desirable, let's not worry about the possible"...

Indeed, you're proving my point, 'the economist' doesn't care about feeding people, bc they assume their fiscal insulation contains a calorific value.

I'm not trying to claim anything, other than the obvious, stupidity clause included in it's mantra "eternal growth is desirable, let's not worry about the possible"...

Obviously, you have never heard of degrowth economics.

Obviously, you have never heard of degrowth economics.

You should pitch that to Elon.

Obviously, you have never heard of degrowth economics.

I've been an active practitioner for nearly 20 years, I live in a caravan and my only energy use is a computer and a microwave, whatever the weather (luckily, I live in Gloucestershire), I work upto 5hrs a week @ £10 an hr, to cover all me needs. So, I think, most people would consider me to be a time-served expert, what would you like to know?

Obviously, you have never heard of degrowth economics.

I don’t feel like clicking a link. Anything to do with:

• Creative Destruction

• Diminishing Returns

• Stagflation

• Frozen Opportunity Flows

??

Edited April 13Apr 13 by iNow

Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development.^[1][2][3]The idea of degrowth is based on ideas and research from economic anthropology, ecological economics, environmental sciences, and development studies. It argues that modern capitalism's unitary focus on growth causes widespread ecological damage and is unnecessary for the further increase of human living standards.^[4][5][6] Degrowth theory has been met with both academic acclaim and considerable criticism.^[7][8][9]

Degrowth's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. It argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective. Policy should instead focus on economic and social metrics such as life expectancy, health, education, housing, and ecologically sustainable work as indicators of both ecosystems and human well-being.^[10] Degrowth theorists posit that this would increase human living standards and ecological preservation even as GDP growth slows.^[11][12][3]

Degrowth theory is highly critical of free market capitalism, and it highlights the importance of extensive public services, care work, self-organization, commons, relational goods, community, and work sharing.^[13][14] Degrowth theory partly orients itself as a critique of green capitalism or as a radical alternative to the market-based, sustainable development goal (SDG) model of addressing ecological overshoot and environmental collapse.^[15]

Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development.^[1][2][3]The idea of degrowth is based on ideas and research from economic anthropology, ecological economics, environmental sciences, and development studies. It argues that modern capitalism's unitary focus on growth causes widespread ecological damage and is unnecessary for the further increase of human living standards.^[4][5][6] Degrowth theory has been met with both academic acclaim and considerable criticism.^[7][8][9]

Degrowth's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. It argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective. Policy should instead focus on economic and social metrics such as life expectancy, health, education, housing, and ecologically sustainable work as indicators of both ecosystems and human well-being.^[10] Degrowth theorists posit that this would increase human living standards and ecological preservation even as GDP growth slows.^[11][12][3]

Degrowth theory is highly critical of free market capitalism, and it highlights the importance of extensive public services, care work, self-organization, commons, relational goods, community, and work sharing.^[13][14] Degrowth theory partly orients itself as a critique of green capitalism or as a radical alternative to the market-based, sustainable development goal (SDG) model of addressing ecological overshoot and environmental collapse.^[15]

Copy and paste does not an expert make. 😉

Besides you're not reading the room, society isn't ready for that. The current political economic situation (the free market) was created post-war to dig us out of a hole (which it achieved); but the polical pendulum always 'swing by' the solution.

People find comfort in whatever situation they find themselves, however squalid the conditionss appears to other's, further up the chain; that's the fundamental problem with getting your idea off the ground, everyone higher in the chain would never swap with anyone below them, and they're affraid that everyone below them 'would litterally kill to swap place's'...

Let's hope the historical pinch point coincides meaningfully with the climate pinch point...