On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:57 AM, John Williams <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Doug Pensinger<[email protected]> wrote: > > > Who would you have us listen to then? > > Each to his own. > > > Maybe firefighters, upon arriving at a structure fire should observe > > scientifically to see if things were really burning as quickly as they > > seemed. > > That would be silly. We have many scientific "experiments" for what > happens when a building is on fire. That is well known. Only in the general sense. Predicting the behavior of a particular fire is extraordinarily difficult. I have dead friends as a result of the unpredictability of firefighting. Like the economy, any significant fire is a chaotic system that is virtually impossible to scientifically assess in real time and can change very rapidly and thus very difficult to predict. > > > It would also be silly to think the US economy is even in the same > ballpark of being understood as a burning building. It seems rather apt in some respects. Like economists faced with the decision of whether to intervene directly or not, firefighters have to decide whether or not the possible benefits of making entry outweigh the risks. They have to decide whether or not to divert resources that may be needed for another fire. And despite all of the science that's been done, the main thing you want to have when you're fighting a significant fire is experienced people leading you. Sounds a lot like the "dismal science" to me. Nick
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
