5 ms·

The author of the original post, John Cochrane, is a leading economist[1], and he is complaining that "much research in economics and finance uses secret data."

by cs702 11y ago

The author of the original post, John Cochrane, is a leading economist[1], and he is complaining that "much research in economics and finance uses secret data." How's that for evidence? Did you read his post? In case it wasn't obvious, I agree with him! -- [1] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/ http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/

davidw 11y ago
You jumped to conclusions from that, though.
- fhdjfjcj 11y ago
  The "comments" section exists for the purpose of making "commentary."
- cs702 11y ago
  No, I din't! I come across this issue repeatedly in the economics literature, but didn't have the inclination to google up more evidence when writing the above comment, as I assumed "everyone knows this." Evidently I was wrong about that. Here are a few other economists (other than Cochrane) weighting on the topic: * http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pd... * http://paulromer.net/mathiness/ http://paulromer.net/mathiness/ (shorter version) * http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/theory-vs-data-in-economics.html http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/theory-vs-data-in... * http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/freshwater-vs-saltwater-divides-macro.html http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/freshwater-vs-sal... * http://news.mit.edu/2010/krugman-event http://news.mit.edu/2010/krugman-event Finally, if this is of interest, I highly recommend you read this opinion piece by Richard Posner, in which he concluded that the dominant conception of economics until the global financial crisis was the abstract-theoretical study of "rational choice" as opposed to the study of how economies actually work: https://newrepublic.com/article/69601/how-i-became-keynesian https://newrepublic.com/article/69601/how-i-became-keynesian If I get the time, I'll google up more blog posts and supporting evidence.
  - davidw 11y ago
    Some of what you point out is that macroeconomics is difficult. Even micro is difficult, because you can't just go running all the experiments on people that you'd like to, but running experiments with entire countries is "kind of" difficult. That doesn't mean it's worthless or mostly partisan or 'religious' (that seems particularly nonsensical). It's fair to point out that economics - like most human fields of study and endeavor - has its problems, but I do object to the broad-brush one-liner style of discussion.
    - cs702 11y ago
      LOL. Yes, running experiments on entire countries is "kind of" difficult, to put it mildly. But the links I shared suggest the divide in macroeconomics goes well beyond that. Quoting from Romer's blog post (http://paulromer.net/mathiness http://paulromer.net/mathiness): "The goal in starting this discussion is to ensure that economics is a science that makes progress toward truth. A necessary condition for making this kind of progress is a capacity for reaching consensus that is grounded in logic and evidence. Given how deeply entrenched positions seem to have become in macroeconomics, this discussion could be unpleasant. If animosity surfaces, it will be tempting to postpone this discussion. We should resist this temptation." In the most nice and polite way possible, he's accusing his colleagues of engaging in cargo cult science.
JackFr 11y ago
I think the problem is is the last part: > often motivated by political, religious, and moralistic ideologies. From Cochrane's post the economist's motivation I came away with was publications, tenure and prestige.

by cs702 11y ago

davidw 11y ago

You jumped to conclusions from that, though.

fhdjfjcj 11y ago
The "comments" section exists for the purpose of making "commentary."
cs702 11y ago
No, I din't! I come across this issue repeatedly in the economics literature, but didn't have the inclination to google up more evidence when writing the above comment, as I assumed "everyone knows this." Evidently I was wrong about that. Here are a few other economists (other than Cochrane) weighting on the topic: * http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pd... * http://paulromer.net/mathiness/ http://paulromer.net/mathiness/ (shorter version) * http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/theory-vs-data-in-economics.html http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/theory-vs-data-in... * http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/freshwater-vs-saltwater-divides-macro.html http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/freshwater-vs-sal... * http://news.mit.edu/2010/krugman-event http://news.mit.edu/2010/krugman-event Finally, if this is of interest, I highly recommend you read this opinion piece by Richard Posner, in which he concluded that the dominant conception of economics until the global financial crisis was the abstract-theoretical study of "rational choice" as opposed to the study of how economies actually work: https://newrepublic.com/article/69601/how-i-became-keynesian https://newrepublic.com/article/69601/how-i-became-keynesian If I get the time, I'll google up more blog posts and supporting evidence.
- davidw 11y ago
  Some of what you point out is that macroeconomics is difficult. Even micro is difficult, because you can't just go running all the experiments on people that you'd like to, but running experiments with entire countries is "kind of" difficult. That doesn't mean it's worthless or mostly partisan or 'religious' (that seems particularly nonsensical). It's fair to point out that economics - like most human fields of study and endeavor - has its problems, but I do object to the broad-brush one-liner style of discussion.
  - cs702 11y ago
    LOL. Yes, running experiments on entire countries is "kind of" difficult, to put it mildly. But the links I shared suggest the divide in macroeconomics goes well beyond that. Quoting from Romer's blog post (http://paulromer.net/mathiness http://paulromer.net/mathiness): "The goal in starting this discussion is to ensure that economics is a science that makes progress toward truth. A necessary condition for making this kind of progress is a capacity for reaching consensus that is grounded in logic and evidence. Given how deeply entrenched positions seem to have become in macroeconomics, this discussion could be unpleasant. If animosity surfaces, it will be tempting to postpone this discussion. We should resist this temptation." In the most nice and polite way possible, he's accusing his colleagues of engaging in cargo cult science.

JackFr 11y ago

I think the problem is is the last part: > often motivated by political, religious, and moralistic ideologies. From Cochrane's post the economist's motivation I came away with was publications, tenure and prestige.