>>>>....
>>>>And yet their theories are put into practice.
>>>
>>>What only shows how stable the system is. Even errors in modeling (what results into faulty controler / sensor, see control theory) will not do much to it.
>>>We have not seen a real problem yet. (In the sense that the majority of population lost believe in the computer numbers / printed fabric we use to transfer values.)
>>
>>
>>http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-18/faq-reinhart-rogoff-and-the-excel-error-that-changed-history
>>
>>This one certainly had me pausing.
>
>-0.1 to 0.2? The others we ignore, this is differnt calculation.
>
>Nice, if one think what economists read into such speculations (As you can see slightly differnt approach and it is differnt by a factor of 10)

That's exactly what I had in mind - their calculation is correct (that's assuming that Excel is bug free...) but the numbers are highly suspect, specially when they start assigning weight factors arbitrarily, or discard extreme results etc etc.

And it all doesn't matter. These guys got the task to justify austerity measures, and they did it. No matter how many errors are found, and how many they confess to (even if they go the extra mile and go from the classic "misplaced decimal point" to a "wrong sign on a cell in a formula" or the extreme "misplaced parenthesis"), the measures stay. Because they are not the theory which gets implemented, they are the theory which is needed as an alibi for a predetermined policy. Ditto for East Anglia and the IPCC gang - no matter how many times they are found to be in error, the carbon tax will still be implemented (and won't be revoked in Australia).

>Dept is bad. Grand grandmothers knowledge.

"Dug je zao drug" - debt is an evil friend.

I paid my last eight years ago and consider myself a free man.