| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dan in Philly |
 Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:437b8299.25051883@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:b8625f6a61]If economists were emulating
physicists, economics would be an empirical science. It isn't.
[/quote:b8625f6a61]
It was in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Soon macroeconomics was able to get
the big things right - e.g. if you print too much money, it causes
inflation. But no one ever succeeded at the more difficult stuff, like
predicting a recession.
By the late 1980s, when I was in grad school, it became clear that
macroeconomists had pretty much given up: most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
Dan in Philly |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:42:59 -0500, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol.com> wrote:
[quote:e685d889b3]royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:437b8299.25051883@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
If economists were emulating
physicists, economics would be an empirical science. It isn't.
It was in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Soon macroeconomics was able to get
the big things right - e.g. if you print too much money, it causes
inflation. But no one ever succeeded at the more difficult stuff, like
predicting a recession.
By the late 1980s, when I was in grad school, it became clear that
macroeconomists had pretty much given up: most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
Things have improved greatly. There are now countless books[/quote:e685d889b3]
condemning the science of economics.
Mason C
[quote:e685d889b3]Dan in Philly
[/quote:e685d889b3] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ruetheday@outgun.com |
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:7f76c40fa1]most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
[/quote:7f76c40fa1]
Likewise. I got my economics degree 10 years ago, but have never
actually worked in the field. I've worked as a consultant in database
applications and decision support systems my entire career.
[quote:7f76c40fa1]From what I remember of econometrics, it was mostly concerned with time
series regressions for forecasting. There was little in the way of any[/quote:7f76c40fa1]
attempt to use econometrics empirically in the sense of using
observational data to attempt to falsify economic hypotheses as a
scientist would.
Roy's post in the previous thread about economics having become
axiomatic was spot on, IMO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill |
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ruetheday@outgun.com wrote:
[quote:0a459690f0]most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
Likewise. I got my economics degree 10 years ago, but have never
actually worked in the field. I've worked as a consultant in database
applications and decision support systems my entire career.
From what I remember of econometrics, it was mostly concerned with time
series regressions for forecasting. There was little in the way of any
attempt to use econometrics empirically in the sense of using
observational data to attempt to falsify economic hypotheses as a
scientist would.
Roy's post in the previous thread about economics having become
axiomatic was spot on, IMO.
[/quote:0a459690f0]
But it needs to be rigorous, doesn't it? I would think
that means empirical, but I dunno.
If this is another effect of "physics is the queen of
the sciences", then it can't be surprising. An acquantaince
wanted to study EE @ MIT, and was all but sneered at for
not going into physics.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| sinister |
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
news:KMNff.28019$1l6.3566@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
[quote:675b018df8]ruetheday@outgun.com wrote:
most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
Likewise. I got my economics degree 10 years ago, but have never
actually worked in the field. I've worked as a consultant in database
applications and decision support systems my entire career.
From what I remember of econometrics, it was mostly concerned with time
series regressions for forecasting. There was little in the way of any
attempt to use econometrics empirically in the sense of using
observational data to attempt to falsify economic hypotheses as a
scientist would.
Roy's post in the previous thread about economics having become
axiomatic was spot on, IMO.
But it needs to be rigorous, doesn't it? I would think
that means empirical, but I dunno.
If this is another effect of "physics is the queen of
the sciences", then it can't be surprising. An acquantaince
wanted to study EE @ MIT, and was all but sneered at for
not going into physics.
[/quote:675b018df8]
You didn't read the thread this spun off of.
The point is that economics has come to resemble mathematics, *not* physics.
[quote:675b018df8]
--
Les Cargill[/quote:675b018df8] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ruetheday@outgun.com |
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:1f0f09da80]But it needs to be rigorous, doesn't it? I would think
that means empirical, but I dunno.
[/quote:1f0f09da80]
I don't think the two are synonymous at all. Geometry is certainly
rigorous, but it's not empirical, it's derived a priori from a set of
postulates. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill |
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
sinister wrote:
[quote:c189a566c5]"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote in message
news:KMNff.28019$1l6.3566@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
ruetheday@outgun.com wrote:
most 'research' was purely
theoretical, with no attempt to see if their models applied to reality.
I've been out of touch for the past 5-10 years, so I don't know if things
have improved.
Likewise. I got my economics degree 10 years ago, but have never
actually worked in the field. I've worked as a consultant in database
applications and decision support systems my entire career.
From what I remember of econometrics, it was mostly concerned with time
series regressions for forecasting. There was little in the way of any
attempt to use econometrics empirically in the sense of using
observational data to attempt to falsify economic hypotheses as a
scientist would.
Roy's post in the previous thread about economics having become
axiomatic was spot on, IMO.
But it needs to be rigorous, doesn't it? I would think
that means empirical, but I dunno.
If this is another effect of "physics is the queen of
the sciences", then it can't be surprising. An acquantaince
wanted to study EE @ MIT, and was all but sneered at for
not going into physics.
You didn't read the thread this spun off of.
[/quote:c189a566c5]
I had, but it was a little diffuse.
[quote:c189a566c5]The point is that economics has come to resemble mathematics, *not* physics.
[/quote:c189a566c5]
Right; but physics was largely the driver for a lot of
mathematics coming to light.
[quote:c189a566c5]--
Les Cargill
--[/quote:c189a566c5]
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:10:07 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com>
wrote:
[quote:11c2f118ab]sinister wrote:
The point is that economics has come to resemble mathematics, *not* physics.
Right; but physics was largely the driver for a lot of
mathematics coming to light.
[/quote:11c2f118ab]
The point is, physicists went about trying to create mathematics in
order to make sense of empirical data. The economists are doing it
backwards, assuming the mathematics and then trying to find empirical
data to support it (and largely failing).
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Scheltgen |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:265a78ad97]The point is, physicists went about trying to create mathematics in
order to make sense of empirical data. The economists are doing it
backwards, assuming the mathematics and then trying to find empirical
data to support it (and largely failing).
[/quote:265a78ad97]
That's par for the course in academic economics these days: have
model, will travel.
Donald (and Deirdre) McCloskey has written some excellent stuff
in this area. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zerge |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:cb516030fc]On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:10:07 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com
wrote:
sinister wrote:
The point is that economics has come to resemble mathematics, *not* physics.
Right; but physics was largely the driver for a lot of
mathematics coming to light.
The point is, physicists went about trying to create mathematics in
order to make sense of empirical data. The economists are doing it
backwards, assuming the mathematics and then trying to find empirical
data to support it (and largely failing).
-- Roy L
[/quote:cb516030fc]
That is correct. In natural sciences you can observe a phenomenon,
repeat the phenomenon in the lab, and then proceed to build a
mathematical model that will describe and even predict the phenomenon.
In social sciences in general, and in economics in particular, it is
EXTREMELY difficult to repeat the phenomenon in a lab. Is not easy to
take a country and pull its economic policy levers in different
combinations to see how the different variables react, because if you
do so millions of people may starve to death in the process. So the
only thing we can do is observe phenomenons, then try to build models
that describe and predict those phenomenons, and in a VERY limited way
suggest economic policies and record the results that usually take
YEARS to show themselves. So we can build models much, much faster than
we can gather the data to prove them. So we wind up arguing for YEARS
about models we aren't even sure are real.
That's why the science of economics advances at such a slooooooow pace
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William F Hummel |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 21 Nov 2005 15:10:57 -0800, "Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:802eff027c]
In natural sciences you can observe a phenomenon,
repeat the phenomenon in the lab, and then proceed to build a
mathematical model that will describe and even predict the phenomenon.
In social sciences in general, and in economics in particular, it is
EXTREMELY difficult to repeat the phenomenon in a lab. Is not easy to
take a country and pull its economic policy levers in different
combinations to see how the different variables react, because if you
do so millions of people may starve to death in the process. So the
only thing we can do is observe phenomenons, then try to build models
that describe and predict those phenomenons, and in a VERY limited way
suggest economic policies and record the results that usually take
YEARS to show themselves. So we can build models much, much faster than
we can gather the data to prove them. So we wind up arguing for YEARS
about models we aren't even sure are real.
That's why the science of economics advances at such a slooooooow pace.
[/quote:802eff027c]
The main problem is in macroeconomics. The appeal for the student is
in the mathematical models which themselves are perfectly rigorous.
But the models abstract from the real world which is messy and
complex. They are necessarily full of simplifying assumptions and
ceteris paribus arguments which ignore significant effects.
Over time, the errors become imbedded in the literature and repeated
by successive authors who don't bother to make a critical study of the
underlying assumptions. In effect, students are indoctrinated in a
particular school of thought, and after having spent so much time and
effort learning, they are naturally loathe to see it overturned. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ruetheday@outgun.com |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:06db84bb28]The main problem is in macroeconomics. The appeal for the student is
in the mathematical models which themselves are perfectly rigorous.
But the models abstract from the real world which is messy and
complex. They are necessarily full of simplifying assumptions and
ceteris paribus arguments which ignore significant effects.
[/quote:06db84bb28]
The same can be said about microeconomics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zerge |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
William F Hummel wrote:
[quote:cca37ee38f]On 21 Nov 2005 15:10:57 -0800, "Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote:
In natural sciences you can observe a phenomenon,
repeat the phenomenon in the lab, and then proceed to build a
mathematical model that will describe and even predict the phenomenon.
In social sciences in general, and in economics in particular, it is
EXTREMELY difficult to repeat the phenomenon in a lab. Is not easy to
take a country and pull its economic policy levers in different
combinations to see how the different variables react, because if you
do so millions of people may starve to death in the process. So the
only thing we can do is observe phenomenons, then try to build models
that describe and predict those phenomenons, and in a VERY limited way
suggest economic policies and record the results that usually take
YEARS to show themselves. So we can build models much, much faster than
we can gather the data to prove them. So we wind up arguing for YEARS
about models we aren't even sure are real.
That's why the science of economics advances at such a slooooooow pace.
The main problem is in macroeconomics. The appeal for the student is
in the mathematical models which themselves are perfectly rigorous.
But the models abstract from the real world which is messy and
complex. They are necessarily full of simplifying assumptions and
ceteris paribus arguments which ignore significant effects.
Over time, the errors become imbedded in the literature and repeated
by successive authors who don't bother to make a critical study of the
underlying assumptions. In effect, students are indoctrinated in a
particular school of thought, and after having spent so much time and
effort learning, they are naturally loathe to see it overturned.
[/quote:cca37ee38f]
Totally agree. But the same thing happens in natural sciences. The big
difference is that in natural sciences you can prove wrong a model much
faster than in social sciences, thus natural sciences evolve faster. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| sinister |
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132695590.389941.124420@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:2b16e7639d]
William F Hummel wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005 15:10:57 -0800, "Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote:
In natural sciences you can observe a phenomenon,
repeat the phenomenon in the lab, and then proceed to build a
mathematical model that will describe and even predict the phenomenon.
In social sciences in general, and in economics in particular, it is
EXTREMELY difficult to repeat the phenomenon in a lab. Is not easy to
take a country and pull its economic policy levers in different
combinations to see how the different variables react, because if you
do so millions of people may starve to death in the process. So the
only thing we can do is observe phenomenons, then try to build models
that describe and predict those phenomenons, and in a VERY limited way
suggest economic policies and record the results that usually take
YEARS to show themselves. So we can build models much, much faster than
we can gather the data to prove them. So we wind up arguing for YEARS
about models we aren't even sure are real.
That's why the science of economics advances at such a slooooooow pace.
The main problem is in macroeconomics. The appeal for the student is
in the mathematical models which themselves are perfectly rigorous.
But the models abstract from the real world which is messy and
complex. They are necessarily full of simplifying assumptions and
ceteris paribus arguments which ignore significant effects.
Over time, the errors become imbedded in the literature and repeated
by successive authors who don't bother to make a critical study of the
underlying assumptions. In effect, students are indoctrinated in a
particular school of thought, and after having spent so much time and
effort learning, they are naturally loathe to see it overturned.
Totally agree. But the same thing happens in natural sciences. The big
difference is that in natural sciences you can prove wrong a model much
faster than in social sciences, thus natural sciences evolve faster.
[/quote:2b16e7639d]
The problem is much worse than that. Economics is an applied science, and
the advice of economists has an enormous impact on the distribution of
wealth.
Applying economists' own theory of human incentives to economists, we can
posit that their hypotheses will be greatly biased in favor of arguments
which, when instantiated as public policy, will favor the rich and powerful.
Of course, other sciences aren't "pure" either---scientists going beyond the
evidence to favor their own school of thought, etc. But the incentives are
much smaller than those found in economics.
Of course, I imagine there are plenty of "workaday" economists who these
observations might not apply to. But I think it's clear that it applies to
the field as a whole. The best evidence is that economists rant and rave
about the harm of distortionary taxes, yet most speak not a word about land
value taxation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| sinister |
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<ruetheday@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:1132673978.857193.21330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:68ea60fc57]The main problem is in macroeconomics. The appeal for the student is
in the mathematical models which themselves are perfectly rigorous.
But the models abstract from the real world which is messy and
complex. They are necessarily full of simplifying assumptions and
ceteris paribus arguments which ignore significant effects.
The same can be said about microeconomics.
[/quote:68ea60fc57]
Really? What examples do you have in mind? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:44 pm
|
|