this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
368 points (94.9% liked)

Political Memes

8081 readers
3235 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Going off what I recall from econ 101 decades ago, the graph on the right violates ceteris paribus: it looks like a historical plot of inflation rate with unemployment rate. The attempted refutation of the Phillips curve looks like a strawman.

Other sciences would also be unsurprised their models don't model longitudinal observations that fail to control other variables over time.

Edit: clarification of strawman

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nope you are misreading the situation. Both graphs show the inflation rate with unemployment rate, aka https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve.

If the charts were of different data axes it would be a different story but my understanding is this is not a strawman. But I don’t blame your investigation—there’s a lot of money out there trying to convince us that economics is simple actually.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The graph on the left demonstrates how employment rate influences inflation (and vice versa). The graph on the right is a historical account of inflation and unemployment in the US, which is not the same thing.

The graph on the right is subject to a lot more variables. The one on the left is also a simplified model. It's not really one to one.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

ah. it seems like you are getting the point 100% while maintaining that we disagree for some reason. :) im 100% with you and ill leave it at that

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Nope you are misreading the situation. Both graphs show the inflation rate with unemployment rate,

Don't believe I am, and I wrote the same. Please read it carefully.

If the charts were of different data axes

Didn't suggest this either.

The plot on the right states in US, 1970s onward, ie, different points in time. Sure, inflation rate & unemployment rate changed in the US over time. Do you know what else changed in the US over time? Absolutely anything.

Scientific prediction requires control: it cannot make accurate predictions when relevant variables are left uncontrolled. Take for instance the ideal gas law. When temperature is constant, we can reasonably predict volume & pressure to vary inversely for ideal gases. If temperature is at least known, then we can still make a prediction (a function of temperature). However, if temperature is uncontrolled, no prediction is possible. Models only fit the conditions they're designed to model.

As mentioned before, economic models typically expect ceteris paribus (all other relevant variables held constant). The article you linked states the Phillips curve models economy only in the short-run. The US economy over a span of years doesn't satisfy any of those conditions. Therefore, the model doesn't apply.

Attempting to refute a model by applying it to situations it doesn't claim to model is a strawman.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

ah there’s your confusion. i am not and no one here is refuting the model. we are criticizing how that simplified model is abused without considering the other variables and applied to policy-making. does that make sense?

i think we agree, if the above reframes the post for you :)

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

we are criticizing how that simplified model is abused without considering the other variables and applied to policy-making. does that make sense?

That indeed makes more sense: it only fits short-run predictions. It justifies short-run policies.

Longer term policies need a different justification: you're definitely right there.

I think economists have a name for mistaking short- & long-run effects (something to do with equilibrium), but the course was too long ago for me to recall.