"Assunptions" account for astounding aspirations.
(EUGENE, Ore.) - One famous truism long enjoyed within what was once termed “the dismal science” is: “If all economists were laid end-to-end, they still would never reach a conclusion.”
Far too many crucial world-events have evented, with accurate predictions by those “non-conclusive” economists, for “dismal” to prevail any longer. They’ve called the turn and the totals; then the consequences, too.
They work with “how”, “what”, and “to whom” as key components for all they do. That may seem relentless but it is all too true. Rerredictive analysis, computer-produced, gives us answers-in-advance for many multiplexed situations and scenarios.
Forecasts for the future have proven, surprisingly, so precise as to amaze (sometimes). Other times they merely amuse (if only briefly!). That’s nearly always due to the unavoidable necessity for “assumption” to guide all they do.
Their reverse-reading of the badly-checkered past produces preliminary insight into what will (probably) follow. They do this mostly with small-error diversion from the final fact --but “probable” is still their favorite word.
Their work requires massive manipulation of slippery numbers Any meaningful working- values depend on their professional judgment, on very complex situations. The inevitable simplicities are each expressed as “assumption: a hypothesis that is taken for granted.”
Mindful reading of human behavior --necessarily simplified for specific calculative purposes-- is part of their act.
Example: “Every person rationally pursues self-interest, ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL!“ Sometimes that’s correct; other times emotion, special circumstance, and political propaganda take their toll on any totalization of probabilities.
No matter how skilled, participant professionals cannot operate “conclusively”. That’s because most of their work is undeniably devoted to ”forecasting”. They must “guesstimate” (read: professionally estimate) an exceptionally elusive future, necessarily nfounded on those slippery numbers, further lubricated by their own assumptions.
That’s why they work in terms of-the-average: “What will happen, rationally and reasonably, within a group, over a stated period of time” -- under stated (read “assumed”) conditions; or other attenuating circumstances.
If you ask an economist how to open a food-can, his response might well be: “Assume a can-opener.” IF then pressed “to reach a conclusion” he’ll rattle off a rigamarole of rational (or irrational) numbers. He’ll be enumerating the mathematical manipulations he will have in work mentally, preparing for inevitable computer input/output.
He may well “assume a new hand/hold direction,” “differing dimensions”, or “diffused operative approach” for his concept. His work may well lead you to a better can-opener, too --guiding size, shape, simple operation of “a newconcept c/o.
(This example taken from actual practice, in preparation for that new c.o. working atop the can.) Sometimes these mentors of metric uncertainty DO reach conclusions worth time and attention. ometimes what they produce only SEEMS to make sense, in peculiar circumstance, or by potent promotion for also-peculiar political profundity. As in “supplyside”, where “less is more”, curvily-contrived.
Whether they arrive there magically or via their professional skills is really immaterial. They manage multiple machinations in digitalized depth for computer-guided cogitation. Those magical moments of probability-process payoff shape process and both government and citizen final-action.
Therein lies considerable difficulty and some danger. What counts considerably today in overview of our complex future must proceed from the complex past. The only pragmatic way to arrive “out there in front” is probability/processing, computer-assisted.
That is best provided by skillful assumption-based enumeration, computer-compounded. (Probable) worth has been well and wildly proven in every area open to clarification by counting -- and some few that are not.
There exists deep, dark uncertainties, even and especially among the most accomplished professionals themselves. That’s built-in probability for participating in any such professional examination of realities, based --as it must be-- on key assumptions as a foundationforming tool.
HOW could it possibly be otherwise, given human characteristics demanded for close examination of event, issue, problem, and possible answers, all shaping our immeasurable future?
If immeasurable --as the future surely remains, even today-- what weird weapon-tool can any skilled profession apply in mirroring for us what may well show up, sooner or later ? As in so many other areas of modern life, it is computer-guided probability that presents the not-easy, never-comfortable answer.
The question then arises: How do we know what the mirror really shows us? Which image is right, and which a mirror-reflected “wrong-side-out” ?? That possible distortion may well initiate differences between Right and Left --right?
Now you see why economics is no longer “the dismal profession”, especially for its major participants. “Assumptions” reign regularly, right around the real answer. They shape and carve the composition, adding special-color where that can help to clarify.
To assume is to cogitate is to choose, on whatever grounds and by whatever characteristics. Now you see why the various “schools”, each and everyone with competing assumptions and comparatively slippery-numbers, lie in wait to compete.
Ambushes do occur, at academic headquarters and the profession’s key publications. One must assume various allegiances aid that human process, since editors are usually human, too. That’s “peer review” --professional criticism of colleague-work, polite most of the time.
The process unavoidably starts with “assumption” as the bottom-plate for all concepts controlling the structure. When peers probe they often find reality fairly and clearly recognized. That makes the project worth much more than computer-time, a true public service. When peers find themselves seeking more hardnumbers, then one can expect still further deeper digging to determine true detailed data.
The printed-page process report then becomes the bedrock for still further assumption-and-study...and so on, and sometimes on-and-on-and on... What thus emerges from this patently professional operation is sometimes confusing to the public --and even other patient professionals.
Usually that’s because the basic assumptions are detailed and distinct, but buried deep and dark --far from the “findings and conclusions” stating --clearly or otherwise-- the stuff so painfully produced. That’s why we outsiders, seeking guidance and direction, sometimes find ourselves also seeking further explanation and added clarity to illuminate for us where reality went, and why it happened-so.
What may well have occurred is the confusion of their major operating area with another closely-allied one: Policy preparation (read: “politics”) Economists must work with numbers: That’s the name of their game.
What can be enumerated furnishes their working materials --and must necessarily constitute their end-product, too.
When they allow themselves to be drawn into what those numbers “should” mean to the humans involved in appreciating and applying that product is where one game overlaps the other. That almost always results in confusion, often ending not in civil conversation but with confrontation.
We must assume that confrontation on what the numbers really mean will, in all probability, continue to color and confuse what economists offer. But pragmatic decision on what to do, when, and how...based on values far beyond mere numbers...must remain the province of those we freely elect.
That’s true-probability, unavoidable via any kind of assumption one cares to make.
----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.
Op Ed: WHY EconomicsSalem-News.com