Constant causes (e.g. emissions) can have accumulating effects (e.g. concentrations). Seems natural to read greed/inequality claim this way.
-
-
-
You still have to explain why the parameter started out low in the recent past.
-
Yes, although how recent depends on the specific example.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Why is the ball falling?" "Gravity." "Gravity isn't new!"
-
The ball can't have been falling forever; something threw it upward at some point, and that's a key part of explanation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nonsense. "Why is speed increasing?" "Acceleration." "Acceleration isn't new."
-
Unless it is plausible that the acceleration has been constant forever, you'll need a theory of why it changed.
-
Seems entirely plausible that greed has been constant forever.
-
Yes, so unless it is plausible that inequality has been increasing at the same rate forever, we need more to explain rising inequality today
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
More accurate: "Never explain a changing parameter SOLELY by a constant factor"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only new (at the time) things that ever changed inequality were the Black Death and the two world wars:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/04/27/the-long-run-tendency-for-wealth-to-concentrate-in-a-few-hands/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about the miracle of compound interest?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That would also say bank account balance is not explainable with a fixed interest rate?
-
Seems unlikely that the bank account balance has been increasing forever.
-
Sure, everything that is also had a starting point. That's not new either.
-
Not sure I follow you.
-
If you did, we could take this to DM. I am now guessing you used "forever" for "monotonic over time" and I took it for "since forever".
-
I think I meant "since forever" at first, but monotonic is actually a better interpretation, so I'll claim to have meant that all along.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
While falling, my speed would be increasing due to a constant force by gravity. My newly impending doom caused by old gravity.
#science -
In your example, gravity is explanatory, but there's still some "new" explaining to do. How did you get up so high? How did you fall?
-
It doesn't matter because none of those affect the change of the parameter. That quote is not helpful however nice it makes us feel
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.