So here’s a few reasons why the community here will find my sequence interesting (if I can become a better writer fast enough),
I can’t do an experiment proving that free banking beats central banking, but I do think I can show that if you actually work through the economics then you can see that free banking wins outright (which isn’t the same as a defense of free banking because there might be something else better than both free and central banking). This is another example of when Bayes beats Science.
So if I’m right about all this, then you will all get to see some pretty huge intellectual blind spots and biases revealed in real time. This won’t be learning about past scientific mistakes and corrections; this will be participating in it.
Economics itself is really interesting and important. Optimization, coordination, rationality (and coordination problems and irrationality), etc. These are all the bread and butter of economics, and of great interest to the community here as well. The sequences, at least those parts that deal with optimizing and rational behavior, are implicitly and explicitly full of economics and economic concepts.
Hey, it’s better than the Discussion page being nothing but a bunch of [Link]‘s and [Meetup: Wherever]’s.
If the question is indeed as unstudied and unconsidered as Mankiw claims, you’d probably achieve more by publishing in an economics journal or on an economics blog, rather than LessWrong.
So here’s a few reasons why the community here will find my sequence interesting (if I can become a better writer fast enough),
I can’t do an experiment proving that free banking beats central banking, but I do think I can show that if you actually work through the economics then you can see that free banking wins outright (which isn’t the same as a defense of free banking because there might be something else better than both free and central banking). This is another example of when Bayes beats Science.
So if I’m right about all this, then you will all get to see some pretty huge intellectual blind spots and biases revealed in real time. This won’t be learning about past scientific mistakes and corrections; this will be participating in it.
Economics itself is really interesting and important. Optimization, coordination, rationality (and coordination problems and irrationality), etc. These are all the bread and butter of economics, and of great interest to the community here as well. The sequences, at least those parts that deal with optimizing and rational behavior, are implicitly and explicitly full of economics and economic concepts.
Hey, it’s better than the Discussion page being nothing but a bunch of [Link]‘s and [Meetup: Wherever]’s.
If the question is indeed as unstudied and unconsidered as Mankiw claims, you’d probably achieve more by publishing in an economics journal or on an economics blog, rather than LessWrong.