"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Lack of Consensus

Stolen from Macleodcartoons.


Kooiti MASUDA said...

I do not think that the title is a joke. We should discern various tints among so-called alarmists.

I am afraid the word "alarmist" cannot avoid bad connotation, so I tentetively use "alarmer" just to mean a person who does alarm. I am not sure whether this is the best choice. I can suggest "warner" or "alerter" as alternatives.

I think that there are bad alarmers and good alarmers. Bad alarmers make alarms without assessing probability. (Worse, "evil alarmers" make alarms about something they know improbable.) Good alarmers point to the dangerous end of the probable range of outcomes.

We need good alarmers, but we do not want bad alarmers.

Michael Tobis said...

The cartoon is definitely an exaggeration, but not by as much as one would like.

I agree with KM's point, as well.