4 ms·

"If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists, that would be splendid!" Agreed! The primary p

"If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists, that would be splendid!" Agreed! The primary problem is politicians use of and reliance on economists as if they are fortune tellers. The fact that there isn't an economic model in use which doesn't treat technology as an externality is to me the best sign of how far of from usefulness economy have become. Of course there are areas where economy is good but it's not a science and it's use as a way to dictate politics is not founded in rationality.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Politicians use economists to justify their own ideology, I can't see anything happening to change that.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  This. Newspaper economics is something completely different from academic economics. It has different rules, and different theories. Academic economics has it share of problems, but it's delusional to use newspaper economics as its metrics.
acover 9y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong. There are certain areas where economics/human behavior that are well understood. Like how people behave in markets. Macroeconomics isn't as well understood. However given the vast control the central bank has monetary policy seems to be quite effective. Side note: I'd love to know what areas of economics, psychology and other soft sciences have predictive power, according to a consensus of experts. Do we know things? What do we know? Let's find out! Edit 2: HN confuses me. Downvotes for what?
- crawshaw 9y ago
  Only in the last 20 years have economists begun to admit their traditional model of people in micro-economic markets, so-called "rational" actors, don't correspond to reality. The amazing resistance of the field to such obvious claims (the more successful part of what's called behavioural economics) gives many of us looking in from the outside pause.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Or did economists know that people aren't rational actors, but lacking any better model, were simply unable to work without that assumption?
    - simonh 9y ago
      Quite. When all you have is a hammer... Its also a bit like inexperienced strategists mistaking the map for the terrain, and discounting actual reports from the field because they don't match what they expect from their model of the situation.
  - acover 9y ago
    I agree. There have been great advances in the last 40 years. There is the need to distinguish between honest economists and those who have assumed a conclusion. Basically the equivalent of creationists. It's unfortunate that in economics it's so hard to distinguish the two. Does classic economics describe commodity markets well under normal situations?
  - fulafel 9y ago
    That was never a consensus.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    That's not exactly a fair representation of the recent work. It seems to be more that because people aren't very discerning, they often demand things which are bad for them. The real mystery to me is why this was ever considered a bad thing, shouldn't the market reward competent participants at every level (including consumers)? Say what you will, but before we introduced so much planning, the market worked just fine for most people, at the expense of some people; now it's been hobbled and it works poorly for nearly everyone, to the immense benefit of cronies and the bureaucrats who receive such generous donations for exercising the new control in their favour.
  - drewcrawford 9y ago
    This is a common misconception. It is "traditional" macroeconomics (e.g. Keynes) did not engage with microeconomics at any point [1]. It was not until the 1970s and the Lucasian rationalist critique that microfoundations became an important inquiry. And that shift didn't occur because people were sentimentally attached to micro (if anything, they were attached to prevailing macro theories), it happened because Lucasian rationalism explained an empirical phenomenon (a shift in the Phillips curve) that was not explained by the other approaches. Since that time support for microfoundations has waxed and waned a few times, in response to several other empirical shifts. In practice, economics is much like the other sciences, with a slightly wider diversity of thought. Like the other sciences, most people only understand a caricature of it that is given through the lens of politics. Unlike the other sciences, more people seem inclined to accept this caricature and criticize it on that basis, which is unfortunate. [1] Everyone, but see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2231707?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2231707?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... for a plausibly-readable overview
- Spooky23 9y ago
  There's nothing wrong with economics. The policy goals shifted from maintaining full employment to minimizing inflation. Predictably, we now have low inflation and a shrinking workforce.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

Politicians use economists to justify their own ideology, I can't see anything happening to change that.

marcosdumay 9y ago
This. Newspaper economics is something completely different from academic economics. It has different rules, and different theories. Academic economics has it share of problems, but it's delusional to use newspaper economics as its metrics.

acover 9y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong. There are certain areas where economics/human behavior that are well understood. Like how people behave in markets. Macroeconomics isn't as well understood. However given the vast control the central bank has monetary policy seems to be quite effective. Side note: I'd love to know what areas of economics, psychology and other soft sciences have predictive power, according to a consensus of experts. Do we know things? What do we know? Let's find out! Edit 2: HN confuses me. Downvotes for what?

crawshaw 9y ago
Only in the last 20 years have economists begun to admit their traditional model of people in micro-economic markets, so-called "rational" actors, don't correspond to reality. The amazing resistance of the field to such obvious claims (the more successful part of what's called behavioural economics) gives many of us looking in from the outside pause.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Or did economists know that people aren't rational actors, but lacking any better model, were simply unable to work without that assumption?
  - simonh 9y ago
    Quite. When all you have is a hammer... Its also a bit like inexperienced strategists mistaking the map for the terrain, and discounting actual reports from the field because they don't match what they expect from their model of the situation.
- acover 9y ago
  I agree. There have been great advances in the last 40 years. There is the need to distinguish between honest economists and those who have assumed a conclusion. Basically the equivalent of creationists. It's unfortunate that in economics it's so hard to distinguish the two. Does classic economics describe commodity markets well under normal situations?
- fulafel 9y ago
  That was never a consensus.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  That's not exactly a fair representation of the recent work. It seems to be more that because people aren't very discerning, they often demand things which are bad for them. The real mystery to me is why this was ever considered a bad thing, shouldn't the market reward competent participants at every level (including consumers)? Say what you will, but before we introduced so much planning, the market worked just fine for most people, at the expense of some people; now it's been hobbled and it works poorly for nearly everyone, to the immense benefit of cronies and the bureaucrats who receive such generous donations for exercising the new control in their favour.
- drewcrawford 9y ago
  This is a common misconception. It is "traditional" macroeconomics (e.g. Keynes) did not engage with microeconomics at any point [1]. It was not until the 1970s and the Lucasian rationalist critique that microfoundations became an important inquiry. And that shift didn't occur because people were sentimentally attached to micro (if anything, they were attached to prevailing macro theories), it happened because Lucasian rationalism explained an empirical phenomenon (a shift in the Phillips curve) that was not explained by the other approaches. Since that time support for microfoundations has waxed and waned a few times, in response to several other empirical shifts. In practice, economics is much like the other sciences, with a slightly wider diversity of thought. Like the other sciences, most people only understand a caricature of it that is given through the lens of politics. Unlike the other sciences, more people seem inclined to accept this caricature and criticize it on that basis, which is unfortunate. [1] Everyone, but see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2231707?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2231707?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... for a plausibly-readable overview
Spooky23 9y ago
There's nothing wrong with economics. The policy goals shifted from maintaining full employment to minimizing inflation. Predictably, we now have low inflation and a shrinking workforce.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]