Robert, we're really talking about a measurement problem that's kind of the same as the money problem, right?

Which was a measurement problem, right? If you're talking about inflation, you want to know the quantity of money.

And the quantity of money is important in determining inflation, especially its relative position to economic conditions, but you don't know how to quantify or measure the quantity of money.

It's the same thing.

If you're inaccurately measuring the quantity of labor that's available to be used, you're going to be fooling yourself.

So what does it to the economists actually do here?

So 50 years of just essentially fooling themselves into believing

they understand things that they don't. Yeah, this may speak to the proclivity of a lot of Austrian

economists that they're very adverse to measurement and metrics in general. So they think that

it can be misleading, which I guess this would be a great instance of that,

this Phillips curve debacle. Oh, and that's one of the bains of Austrian economists is that,

you know, recognizing how stupid that was from the very beginning. Yeah. And we're still relying on

it today. Is that right? It's gone through several different intellectual

iterations where it's been, you know, neo-Keensian economists have claimed they've updated it, made it

more accurate and more usable. Like I said, they use more inflation expectations instead of,

you know, just raw unemployment rate versus CPI or some things like that.

But by and large, you know, again, as we said, if, if you don't know how to measure the thing you're attempting to control or exploit and manipulate, it's, you know, garbage in, garbage out.

That's right.

Yeah.

The old programming.

I love a Wittenstein's ruler on this.

If you're trying to measure a table with a ruler, but you can't trust the ruler,

...