New knowledge on a public forum

[Barmaley]

If a public forum were created to discuss complex and controversial topics—such as whether Trump's tariffs are good or bad for the USA—and participation was restricted to experts with PhD-level qualifications in economics or political studies, would the discussion eventually converge on a reasonably high level of certainty regarding the issue?

[CharonY]

There are at least three factors in question. The first is regarding the knowledge of participants and having a discussion of folks with at some expertise on the topic has high potential of improving the quality of discussions. The part that I would add is some level of moderation to keep discussions on-topic.

The second part that is more or less only implied is regarding certainty of of a consensus. That would be highly dependent on the topic and how complex it is. If there are knowledge gaps, more research might be needed before experts can be certain about the topic.

The third factor is how well a question is defined. In this case, good or bad could mean a lot of things. A good question is critical for high quality discussions and research. One could ask specifics, such as what outcome are tariffs likely to have on specific measures. Or even broader ones, like what is the impact on the labour market? But ideally it has to be something measurable and therefore  defined.

[exchemist]

58 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

If a public forum were created to discuss complex and controversial topics—such as whether Trump's tariffs are good or bad for the USA—and participation was restricted to experts with PhD-level qualifications in economics or political studies, would the discussion eventually converge on a reasonably high level of certainty regarding the issue?

You always get some disagreement on economics, as it is not a hard science. One of my brothers once commented (pace von Clausewitz) that economics sometimes appears to be the continuation of politics by other means. I think I agree. So you won't get uniformity of opinion.

However it seems a safe prediction from the economists I have read (mainly in the Financial Times),  that 80% or so of them will say the tariffs, especially in the disorganised way Trump is going about them, will be bad for the USA. They are expected to put up the price of goods, make most people poorer and will not repatriate much manufacturing from overseas because there is no reason to believe that, once imposed, they will remain in place long enough to rely on to justify new manufacturing investments. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:53 PM by exchemist

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You always get some disagreement on economics, as it is not a hard science. One of my brothers once commented (pace von Clausewitz) that economics sometimes appears to be the continuation of politics by other means. I think I agree. So you won't get uniformity of opinion.

However it seems a safe prediction from the economists I have read (mainly in the Financial Times),  that 80% or so of them will say the tariffs, especially in the disorganised way Trump is going about them, will be bad for the USA. They are expected to put up the price of goods, make most people poorer and will not repatriate much manufacturing from overseas because there is no reason to believe that, once imposed, they will remain in place long enough to rely on to justify new manufacturing investments. 

This might be a bit off-topic, depending on what OP had in mind, but I think the short-term effects and especially because of the way it is implemented, as you mentioned is pretty much universally seen as detrimental. I think where folks might have different opinions is what will happen if broad tariffs would be maintained for a very long time).

[Barmaley]

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There are at least three factors in question. The first is regarding the knowledge of participants and having a discussion of folks with at some expertise on the topic has high potential of improving the quality of discussions. The part that I would add is some level of moderation to keep discussions on-topic.

The second part that is more or less only implied is regarding certainty of of a consensus. That would be highly dependent on the topic and how complex it is. If there are knowledge gaps, more research might be needed before experts can be certain about the topic.

The third factor is how well a question is defined. In this case, good or bad could mean a lot of things. A good question is critical for high quality discussions and research. One could ask specifics, such as what outcome are tariffs likely to have on specific measures. Or even broader ones, like what is the impact on the labor market? But ideally it has to be something measurable and therefore  defined.

 

Before addressing the three factors you mentioned, I would like to clarify what I am trying to understand. My primary concern is not the specific economic aspects of tariffs but rather the general mechanics of how a well-moderated, expert-driven discussion could illuminate a complex subject. Specifically, I wonder whether such a discussion could clarify the initial research topic to the extent that a large number of random, smart, educated, and unbiased individuals—who did not participate in the forum—could read through it and arrive at a clear, certain, and similar understanding of the issue.

Regarding the factors:

A) This scenario is admittedly hypothetical, as implementing such conditions in reality would be challenging. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the forum is well-moderated, consists solely of numerous experts in the relevant field, and that these experts initially hold differing positions but engage in good faith to uncover the truth.

B) I chose tariffs as an example because they represent a complex and nuanced topic that likely cannot achieve 100% certainty in conclusions (as might be possible with hard science questions like mathematics). However, tariffs provide sufficient criteria—such as inflation, trade deficit, unemployment rate—for making assertive judgments. The logic and reasoning applied to these measurable factors should facilitate a well-founded conclusion.

C) Defining the question itself could be an initial step within the forum’s discussion. For instance, determining what constitutes "good for the USA" might involve criteria such as overall economic effectiveness or common wealth. It’s reasonable to expect that experts could quickly establish such definitions to guide subsequent discussions.

The reason I am asking this is due to a recent argument with someone who claimed that even under ideal conditions—free from trolls and bots, with devoted experts working diligently over time—the discussion would diverge rather than converge toward a conclusion. I’m curious whether this assertion holds true or if such forums could indeed produce clarity and consensus

 

[TheVat]

I wonder if the World Economic Forum would host expert discussion along the lines of what is described in the OP.

 

https://www.weforum.org/about/institutional-framework/

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/how-do-trade-tariffs-work/

It sounds like tariffs and trade is one area of economics where there is some convergence on the conclusion that the TP administration tactics are capricious and counterproductive, given the global nature of manufacturing supply chains, investor needs for stable regulatory conditions, and the withering effects of stagflation.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Barmaley said:

would the discussion eventually converge on a reasonably high level of certainty regarding the issue?

No

[MigL]

Yes.

Tariffs are not hard to understand.
If another country has a manufacturing advantage over your country, whether it be labor costs, raw material costs, or what have you, implementing tariffs on that country's import will help 'even the field' for the domestic manufacturer.
This makes the domestic manufacturer competitive; but only at the higher price of the product.
In no way does it reduce the cost of the product; the consumer has the higher cost passed on to them.

Only K Leavitt and people whose orange hair dye have poisoned their brain think otherwise

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Barmaley said:

The reason I am asking this is due to a recent argument with someone who claimed that even under ideal conditions—free from trolls and bots, with devoted experts working diligently over time—the discussion would diverge rather than converge toward a conclusion. I’m curious whether this assertion holds true or if such forums could indeed produce clarity and consensus

I am mostly with MigL on this one but I would add two more stipulations. One, which can be tricky in today's atmosphere, is that folks are going to discuss in good faith. This is fairly common in scientific conferences and roundtables and expert panels, where at least quasi-consensus can be reached. This does not meant that there is a singular answer that all can agree on, but rather there is a consensus regarding the current state of knowledge regarding a particular topic, frequently with a list of open questions, areas of uncertainty or disagreement and knowledge gaps to be addressed. In these contexts, experts basically outline their viewpoint and tend to calibrate it with additional information gained by the other experts on the table.

However, with a random assortment of folks who just happen to have expertise in the area, but might have different motivations (e.g. if someone works for the government and doesn't want to get fired), things may be different.

The second is basically what I mentioned above already, and is related to how well a system is understood and what degrees of freedom the question offers. If the question is broad (like the overall impact on the US economy) there is likely going to be a clear consensus on immediate and well-understood effects (e.g. increase in consumer pricing), probably more variability in areas with less data (e.g. how will individual companies react in the long-term) and so on. Also, the more granular the answer is supposed to be, the less consensus is likely as often detailed knowledge is needed. For example, tariffs can increase competitiveness for domestic manufacturing based on standard models, however, it might not be true in all industries which could be specialized knowledge. And again, I think that certainty depends less on the format of discussion, but how well a system is understood in relation to the question under discussion.

 

 

[LuckyR]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am mostly with MigL on this one but I would add two more stipulations. One, which can be tricky in today's atmosphere, is that folks are going to discuss in good faith. This is fairly common in scientific conferences and roundtables and expert panels, where at least quasi-consensus can be reached. This does not meant that there is a singular answer that all can agree on, but rather there is a consensus regarding the current state of knowledge regarding a particular topic, frequently with a list of open questions, areas of uncertainty or disagreement and knowledge gaps to be addressed. In these contexts, experts basically outline their viewpoint and tend to calibrate it with additional information gained by the other experts on the table.

However, with a random assortment of folks who just happen to have expertise in the area, but might have different motivations (e.g. if someone works for the government and doesn't want to get fired), things may be different.

The second is basically what I mentioned above already, and is related to how well a system is understood and what degrees of freedom the question offers. If the question is broad (like the overall impact on the US economy) there is likely going to be a clear consensus on immediate and well-understood effects (e.g. increase in consumer pricing), probably more variability in areas with less data (e.g. how will individual companies react in the long-term) and so on. Also, the more granular the answer is supposed to be, the less consensus is likely as often detailed knowledge is needed. For example, tariffs can increase competitiveness for domestic manufacturing based on standard models, however, it might not be true in all industries which could be specialized knowledge. And again, I think that certainty depends less on the format of discussion, but how well a system is understood in relation to the question under discussion.

 

 

Exactly. It is an error to assume that possessing expertise on a topic necessarily lessens the role of partisanship in a quasi-competitive venue.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly. It is an error to assume that possessing expertise on a topic necessarily lessens the role of partisanship in a quasi-competitive venue.

Yes...

Or no...

[MigL]

NO! NO! NO!
Tariffs are a tax on the supplying country and will make America rich. Rich I say!
And walls to keep Mexicans out are paid for by the Mexicans!

And a whole bunch of idiots, supposedly rich businessmen, are too scared to tell this President he has no clothes.

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

NO! NO! NO!
Tariffs are a tax on the supplying country and will make America rich. Rich I say!
And walls to keep Mexicans out are paid for by the Mexicans!

And a whole bunch of idiots, supposedly rich businessmen, are too scared to tell this President he has no clothes.

Don't you think TFG is using the tariffs to pay for his tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, which he wants to make permanent so the tariffs can never be dropped? I don't buy the "he doesn't realize consumers pay for tariffs" bit, there's been too much controversy over it. He's screwing the taxpayers doubly, taking more from the middle and working classes in taxes AND raising the costs on goods we consume. 

[Barmaley]

 

Here’s a refined and clarified version of your text with improved flow and precision:

My primary focus is not on whether tariffs are a good idea but rather on the epistemological and gnoseological dimensions of achieving deep understanding through collaboration among qualified individuals. The tariff question serves merely as an example of issues with significant public importance—worthy of rigorous investigation—yet it is just one among many.

It would seem beneficial for society to institutionalize such discussions, yet this has not become standard practice for tariffs or analogous topics. One prevailing view suggests that certainty in these debates is unattainable due to the inherent complexity of the knowledge involved: research trajectories may diverge rather than converge into a coherent body of statements deemed most plausible under scrutiny.

The core question, then, is whether topics like tariffs are determinable—amenable to conclusive analysis—or if their factual underpinnings are too ambiguous to resolve decisively.

 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

 

Here’s a refined and clarified version of your text with improved flow and precision:

My primary focus is not on whether tariffs are a good idea but rather on the epistemological and gnoseological dimensions of achieving deep understanding through collaboration among qualified individuals. The tariff question serves merely as an example of issues with significant public importance—worthy of rigorous investigation—yet it is just one among many.

It would seem beneficial for society to institutionalize such discussions, yet this has not become standard practice for tariffs or analogous topics. One prevailing view suggests that certainty in these debates is unattainable due to the inherent complexity of the knowledge involved: research trajectories may diverge rather than converge into a coherent body of statements deemed most plausible under scrutiny.

The core question, then, is whether topics like tariffs are determinable—amenable to conclusive analysis—or if their factual underpinnings are too ambiguous to resolve decisively.

 

And this shows that LLM are not necessarily very good in providing clarity, despite their claim of doing so.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

NO! NO! NO!
Tariffs are a tax on the supplying country and will make America rich. Rich I say!
And walls to keep Mexicans out are paid for by the Mexicans!

And a whole bunch of idiots, supposedly rich businessmen, are too scared to tell this President he has no clothes.

 

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Don't you think TFG is using the tariffs to pay for his tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, which he wants to make permanent so the tariffs can never be dropped? I don't buy the "he doesn't realize consumers pay for tariffs" bit, there's been too much controversy over it. He's screwing the taxpayers doubly, taking more from the middle and working classes in taxes AND raising the costs on goods we consume. 

I think there are economic folks are telling him that broad tariffs generally speaking are a bad idea. However, in his inner circle there are also proponents for tariffs. Looking at Project 2025, there is for example Navarro who proposed reciprocal tariffs to balance trade and apparently he believes that it has the potential to move supply chains back to the US.

I assume that TFG hears this various opinions and since he is generally not able to synthesize information well, he is going just to pick and choose parts that he likes. Which then results in a haphazard implementation that looks amateurish.

[TheVat]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I assume that TFG hears this various opinions and since he is generally not able to synthesize information well, he is going just to pick and choose parts that he likes. Which then results in a haphazard implementation that looks amateurish.

Yep.  What I glean from experts is that everything is connected, like an ecosystem.  So after tariffs have landed hard on the middle/ working class, they reduce their spending on consumer items (or they become unemployed and cut back to bare necessities)  and the corporations that make them begin to wither and...then turn on the WH administration they had previously backed.  People sometimes forget that many of the wealthy are wealthy only so long as hoi polloi have disposable income.  This applies even to wealth that is earned from what Americans define as essentials - with sufficient stagflation, consumption of utlities and fuel will drop.  Thermostats are turned down, lights are shut off, car trips are fewer, cellphone users switch to cheaper plans, simpler meals are served, etc.  The MAGA approach to tariffs is a recipe for stagflation and the shrinking economy that brings - it's not an oligarch pleaser.  (it might, however, be good for urban air quality, just as the  Covid lockdowns were...)

 

 

1 hour ago, Barmaley said:

 

It would seem beneficial for society to institutionalize such discussions, yet this has not become standard practice for tariffs or analogous topics. One prevailing view suggests that certainty in these debates is unattainable due to the inherent complexity of the knowledge involved: research trajectories may diverge rather than converge into a coherent body of statements deemed most plausible under scrutiny.

The core question, then, is whether topics like tariffs are determinable—amenable to conclusive analysis—or if their factual underpinnings are too ambiguous to resolve decisively.

 

Was the World Economic Forum link I provided of any use, as an example of such topics being institutionalized?  To your core question, tariffs have determinable outcomes because their effects can be tracked with various mathematical tools, so if such research is done it offers some possibility of drawing unambiguous conclusions.  I suspect that the results of the tariff s--tbomb being dropped today will be unambiguous.  Stagflation was unambiguous in its effects in the early 70s, and economists still reference that period of economic shrinkage, massive unemployment, and inflation.  One wonders how often unambiguous effects need to be dropped on people's heads before they start to notice and connect the dots.   

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Barmaley said:

 

Here’s a refined and clarified version of your text with improved flow and precision:

My primary focus is not on whether tariffs are a good idea but rather on the epistemological and gnoseological dimensions of achieving deep understanding through collaboration among qualified individuals. The tariff question serves merely as an example of issues with significant public importance—worthy of rigorous investigation—yet it is just one among many.

It would seem beneficial for society to institutionalize such discussions, yet this has not become standard practice for tariffs or analogous topics. One prevailing view suggests that certainty in these debates is unattainable due to the inherent complexity of the knowledge involved: research trajectories may diverge rather than converge into a coherent body of statements deemed most plausible under scrutiny.

The core question, then, is whether topics like tariffs are determinable—amenable to conclusive analysis—or if their factual underpinnings are too ambiguous to resolve decisively.

 

As I indicated before, economics is not an exact science. This is due to the immense complexity of interactions in societies and the role of non-rational factors, such as psychology of groups , which are hard to predict. Because of this, analysis of issues in economics inevitably involves human judgements, since the interactions cannot be objectively calculated out. Results cannot therefore be determined unambiguously with any confidence.
 

However likely outcomes can be established, on the basis of majority view. This applies to the effects of tariffs as much as to any other economic policy question.

[studiot]

14 hours ago, Barmaley said:

If a public forum were created to discuss complex and controversial topics—such as whether Trump's tariffs are good or bad for the USA—and participation was restricted to experts with PhD-level qualifications in economics or political studies, would the discussion eventually converge on a reasonably high level of certainty regarding the issue?

The most important piece of knowledge for someone with a PhD is the limit of their own knowledge.

That this is so in economics was brought to poignant focus when the concensus of PhD folks brought about the crash of 2008 due to failure to understand the Black-Scholes equation and its assumptions and limitations.

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yep.  What I glean from experts is that everything is connected, like an ecosystem.  So after tariffs have landed hard on the middle/ working class, they reduce their spending on consumer items (or they become unemployed and cut back to bare necessities)  and the corporations that make them begin to wither and...then turn on the WH administration they had previously backed.  People sometimes forget that many of the wealthy are wealthy only so long as hoi polloi have disposable income.  This applies even to wealth that is earned from what Americans define as essentials - with sufficient stagflation, consumption of utlities and fuel will drop.  Thermostats are turned down, lights are shut off, car trips are fewer, cellphone users switch to cheaper plans, simpler meals are served, etc.  The MAGA approach to tariffs is a recipe for stagflation and the shrinking economy that brings - it's not an oligarch pleaser.  (it might, however, be good for urban air quality, just as the  Covid lockdowns were...)

 

 

I think with Trump you have to factor in the personal motivation too. Tariffs hurt people ( or whole countries) and the exercise of power to hurt is what gives Trump a hard-on, along with keeping him at the top of the news agenda of the world.  I think he has only a hazy idea of the economic consequences. What matters is it is an expression of personal dominance. He enjoys seeing the consternation he causes and the spectacle of leaders of foreign countries crawling to him to beg for relief. And a lot of his supporters enjoy it as much as he does. They too want to hurt “other” groups. This feeling is a large part of the attraction of  fascist movements. Supporters feel at last allowed to indulge their inner wish to beat someone up.

The feeling turns sour only when they too get hurt, which is what will probably happen. That I think is why Carney is handling this the right way.

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

He's screwing the taxpayers doubly, taking more from the middle and working classes in taxes AND raising the costs on goods we consume. 

They also give him more direct control over the economy, specifically in the ability he will now have to grant exceptions for friends and folks who bend the knee. 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

They also give him more direct control over the economy, specifically in the ability he will now have to grant exceptions for friends and folks who bend the knee. 

Yes. The ability to exert personal dominance is what he enjoys. 

[CharonY]

It is getting a bit off-topic here, but the tariff announcements by the administration demonstrate to me an incredibly lazy approach that basically just assumes that all trade deficits are caused by tariffs and other forms of "cheating". The way they justified their methodology is eerily close to what students do if they want to appear clever without really investing time into understanding the issue (and extensive use of LLMs).

Just look at the stupid long explanation https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations. Looking at the equation it is clear that they did nothing more than calculating the trade deficit (with constants selected to not influence the calculation, i.e. being 1).

The US tariffs are therefore nothing more than half of the trade deficit, a calculation that an aide might have done in their coffee break.

Going back to OP, discussing this level of stupid among experts would likely result in derision for the lazy methodology, simply because the justification is so convoluted (and ultimately wrong), just to appear clever. My guess is that a group of educated economists would just feel at least mildly insulted when faced to discuss the implementation of US tariffs.

The US is crashing the world economy because of vague ideas and being too lazy to actually read up on them.

[Barmaley]

 

  

 

On 4/2/2025 at 12:41 PM, TheVat said:

 

Was the World Economic Forum link I provided of any use, as an example of such topics being institutionalized?   

Unfortunately, they are not. While the main idea there presented thoughtfully it was a one-sided view on the issue. I was trying to google (is there a way to say "to perplexity"?) the tariff info and found that majority of opinions are strongly negative. However, it is hard to find any serous and deep arguments pro tariffs. There are several right wing sources which take Trump's side, unfortunately they are more declarative and not informative. I would really would like to see an expert opinion which can show the thought process of tariffs proponents.

I still need to emphasize that issue of tariffs is only 10% if my interest. I would like to focus more on the phenomena that there are very important topics which deserve serious consideration and they are not scrutinized publicly. Another example could be if we need to run standardized text for school children or do statins help against heart disease etc.

Will it be accurate to say that the main reason that people are not trying to discuss important topis that the discussions would not be fruitful since of truth discovery is not achievable through such means as professional public collaborative forum?

I am sorry if I did not explain myself clear since English is my second language.

 

 

On 2/11/2025 at 8:23 AM, npts2020 said:

 

[TheVat]

41 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

However, it is hard to find any serous and deep arguments pro tariffs.

In a modern global economy, arguments for tariffs that sabotage free trade and global supply chains may be rare.

46 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

There are several right wing sources which take Trump's side, unfortunately they are more declarative and not informative. I would really would like to see an expert opinion which can show the thought process of tariffs proponents.

Well, thought processes from ardent Trump supporters are often difficult to discern.  As you suggest, they favor bold declarations over nuanced and informative arguments.

51 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

still need to emphasize that issue of tariffs is only 10% if my interest. I would like to focus more on the phenomena that there are very important topics which deserve serious consideration and they are not scrutinized publicly.

Yes, that's really the question.  It does seem that social media, a decline in journalism and civic education, and a shortening attention span, may contribute to a decline in more informative public debates between experts.  

What we have now leads more to culture and ideological wars than to real dialogues.  

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is getting a bit off-topic here, but the tariff announcements by the administration demonstrate to me an incredibly lazy approach that basically just assumes that all trade deficits are caused by tariffs and other forms of "cheating". The way they justified their methodology is eerily close to what students do if they want to appear clever without really investing time into understanding the issue (and extensive use of LLMs).

Just look at the stupid long explanation https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations. Looking at the equation it is clear that they did nothing more than calculating the trade deficit (with constants selected to not influence the calculation, i.e. being 1).

The US tariffs are therefore nothing more than half of the trade deficit, a calculation that an aide might have done in their coffee break.

Going back to OP, discussing this level of stupid among experts would likely result in derision for the lazy methodology, simply because the justification is so convoluted (and ultimately wrong), just to appear clever. My guess is that a group of educated economists would just feel at least mildly insulted when faced to discuss the implementation of US tariffs.

The US is crashing the world economy because of vague ideas and being too lazy to actually read up on them.

In terms of the economy, you're absolutely right.

But a thought struck me, would the resultant contraction actually help the planet and our ability to survive the economist?

Is that serendipitous or ironic?