Fallacy of Composition: To Compare or Not to Compare
Appetizing question: “Is Shaquille O'Neal tall?” The only consistently (L-1) and continuously (T-1) true answer: “His stature is what it is.”
In
everyday life, we live in a given community with friends, foes, rights, wrongs,
benefits, costs, “the good, the bad and the ugly” of all different kinds and
degrees. As such most everything is subject to comparison. For instance, you are
taller than he is taller than she is taller than I am taller than my kid is
taller than the doll is, and on and on. At this moment, for another, I would prefer knowledge of political economy to physics to mathematics to economics to AI technology,
& cetera, all the way to knowledge of macroeconomics.
In no case all through the long process of “production to consumption” (to Adam Smith): The rest of us as no Scrooge would never ever “prefer liquidity” to a certain creative power, a particular good or a specific “leisure.” As long as we are concerned, "the only purpose of" hoarding money is “getting rid of it” (to Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus) as needs and wants be. On the longest sidewalk of human history, the preference has not at single moment been less diverse all across the economy than the stature is all across the nation
“Honey, Can’t Find Unanimity!” Oh wait and imagine: Shaq in a capsule on the orbit of the Moon. There would surely be unanimity as well solitude. At any rate, to us as non-macroeconomist: “Shaquille O'Neal when near the Moon would be taller than Nobody.”
From Here to Eternity, more generally, neither a gentlemen nor a lady, British or otherwise, is taller than Oneself.
6) Macroeconomic Indicators
Now
we are anywhere “except for in” (to Robert Solow), or “exogenous to” if you will, Cambridge.
How
many gross national products or gross national income do we have out there
in the economy? Well, there is only one GDP or GNI, each in unanimity and solitude. Then, is the
US GDP of 2025 large, or small? If either, how much? We cannot say it is either, all through the time until in the
year 2525. Notwithstanding, we can relatively risk-free and safely claim that the US GDP be the largest all across the economies on Earth all in the US dollar valued all
at the exchange rate, a variable or otherwise, in the year 2025.
Apparently, there is no way to tell a GDP of say, “30 trillion US dollars,” is large or small all by itself. That’s the very nature of each and all macroeconomic indicators of the individual nation; in this respect there is no such thing applicable as “fallacy of composition” Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus talk about.
What
might we think of the r, Y, P, M, K, L, N
and the like of macroeconomics as in the IS-LM model, the AS-AD model and so many GEMs (for general
equilibrium models)? The rest of us would “speculate” that each and all the macroeconomic symbols are supposedly
fixed ex post facto in Here or
resting in peaceful equilibrium of Eternity. There surely is genuine unanimity as for each of all the indicators.
A
Thorn of the Rose: “Where Is the Comparison?” Is Y r, Y, P or cetera big, large, tall or great in solitude, unanimously or otherwise?
At the End of the Day.
There is absolutely no compassion to a true
theory which stands alone. There is no choice for a theory, if not for a fake theory, a sham theory or an a-theory.
Across a river or the River at the other side of theories, on the contrary, there are more or less multiple choices, sometimes "so many choices," with regard to the following: a or an
-Conventional wisdom or rule of
thumb,
-Opinion
or bias
-Preference
or taste
-Hypothesis, conjecture or speculation,
- Panacea, elixir or snake oil, and/or
-“Pride
and Prejudice”
Comments
Post a Comment