4 ms·

Yes, I meant which economists specifically? Economists are rational economic agents similar to the people that they study. They make mistakes, but more importa

Yes, I meant which economists specifically? Economists are rational economic agents similar to the people that they study. They make mistakes, but more importantly - like us - they also respond to incentives. There's an interesting set of incentives in economics departments that the physics department simply doesn't have. I might go to a physicist to fix my boiler if all the plumbers in my area were shysters.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Economists are rational economic agents similar to the people that they study. Neither economists nor the people they study are rational economic agents, as the economists that use empiricism rather than trying to bash the observations to fit neat preconceived theoretical frameworks would probably recognize.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  A key plank of neoclassical economics - taught in every econ 101 class - is that "people respond to incentives". Do you disagree with that? Coz I think most of what they teach is bullshit and even I don't disagree with that. I don't see any reason why economists wouldn't respond to incentives too. They're people just like us, no? Perhaps not always 100% rational, but a close enough approximation.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A key plank of neoclassical economics - taught in every econ 101 class - is that "people respond to incentives". That people are “rational actors” is, indeed, a central tenet of neoclassical economics, but it is more “people respond to incentives”; it specifies exactly how people respond to incentives; the rational actor model holds that people behave so as to optimize the output of their own utility function as if they had perfect knowledge of the available options and the net utility of each. Of course, that idea is at best a very loose approximation and, at worst — as behavioral economists tend to see it — a dogma that tends to lead people away from analysis and application of the available information on how people actually behave, which is very consistently at odds with the rational actor model.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      Nonetheless I don't see much that is irrational about the way economists actually behave in aggregate. I think they more or less rationally response to the incentives they are given. The controversy surrounds what those incentives actually are. Other people (e.g. gamblers) perhaps not so much.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Well, if you put it that way, I'd distrust a lot of economists. Big bank economists, stock broker economists, union economists, any lobbying group economists... have I missed any? Oddly, I more or less trust the Congressional Budget Office. I kind of trust the Fed. (They have their own lens, which you can call bias, but they have more and better data than anyone else, and they are a lot more aware of second- and third-order effects than almost anyone else.) I read your original comment as saying that we should have gone to the unions as our sole source of economic advice. I think that's a terrible idea. If you meant that we should listen to them as well as others, sure, I actually agree with that.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  "Back in the days when the Rogoff/Reinhardt “government debt/GDP in excess of 90% is really really bad” was taken seriously, the CBO produced a forecast showing that Federal debt to GDP reached 89.8% by 2022, enough to give the deficit hawks plenty of grist. But Tom Ferguson and Rob Johnson pointed out in a 2010 paper that the CBO had neglected to net out financial assets. If you did that, it took the debt/DGP ratio to a lever that the scaremongers could not depict as troublesome, 82%." (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/cbo-still-pushing-deficit-scaremongering-propaganda.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/cbo-still-pushing-de...) Oh look. They "forgot" not net out financial assets in a way that conveniently providid deficit hawks more 'useful' data. That's A) deceptive? or B) not deceptive? You tell me. For the Fed their strong objections to the audit and the long series of absolutely bullshit reasons they gave in an attempt to prevent it and the data that was subsequently revealed when those objections failed paint a pretty clear picture of whose side they were really on. It was the banks that wanted that audit prevented and the data was embarrassing for them because it revealed the true extent of their bailouts. So yeah, both institutions align ideologically with those big bank economists whom you just told me you don't trust. You're familiar with the idea of "regulatory capture" I presume? Well, dig slightly below the surface of the output of these two institutions and it gets revealed in all of its nasty glory. I have no doubt that their ideological bias could be shifted if the center of power in Washington moved, however. The CBO and Fed could be made impartial and objective, but the idea that they are right now is laughable. >I read your original comment as saying that we should have gone to the unions as our sole source of economic advice. I think that's a terrible idea. I've no doubt a lot of people think that. People who would see their power diminished and those who consume their tasty kool aid alike. The fact remains that the economy is built upon people who work - rather than own - for a living and that is who unions represent. Banks represent the opposite. When this used to be more predominant (e.g. the 1950s), the economy was performing considerably better than it is now, and if you think that the actual policy reaction to the 2008 crisis was in any way appropriate you are either smoking some heavy shit or a beneficiary.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Economists are rational economic agents similar to the people that they study. Neither economists nor the people they study are rational economic agents, as the economists that use empiricism rather than trying to bash the observations to fit neat preconceived theoretical frameworks would probably recognize.

crdoconnor 9y ago
A key plank of neoclassical economics - taught in every econ 101 class - is that "people respond to incentives". Do you disagree with that? Coz I think most of what they teach is bullshit and even I don't disagree with that. I don't see any reason why economists wouldn't respond to incentives too. They're people just like us, no? Perhaps not always 100% rational, but a close enough approximation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A key plank of neoclassical economics - taught in every econ 101 class - is that "people respond to incentives". That people are “rational actors” is, indeed, a central tenet of neoclassical economics, but it is more “people respond to incentives”; it specifies exactly how people respond to incentives; the rational actor model holds that people behave so as to optimize the output of their own utility function as if they had perfect knowledge of the available options and the net utility of each. Of course, that idea is at best a very loose approximation and, at worst — as behavioral economists tend to see it — a dogma that tends to lead people away from analysis and application of the available information on how people actually behave, which is very consistently at odds with the rational actor model.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    Nonetheless I don't see much that is irrational about the way economists actually behave in aggregate. I think they more or less rationally response to the incentives they are given. The controversy surrounds what those incentives actually are. Other people (e.g. gamblers) perhaps not so much.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Well, if you put it that way, I'd distrust a lot of economists. Big bank economists, stock broker economists, union economists, any lobbying group economists... have I missed any? Oddly, I more or less trust the Congressional Budget Office. I kind of trust the Fed. (They have their own lens, which you can call bias, but they have more and better data than anyone else, and they are a lot more aware of second- and third-order effects than almost anyone else.) I read your original comment as saying that we should have gone to the unions as our sole source of economic advice. I think that's a terrible idea. If you meant that we should listen to them as well as others, sure, I actually agree with that.

crdoconnor 9y ago
"Back in the days when the Rogoff/Reinhardt “government debt/GDP in excess of 90% is really really bad” was taken seriously, the CBO produced a forecast showing that Federal debt to GDP reached 89.8% by 2022, enough to give the deficit hawks plenty of grist. But Tom Ferguson and Rob Johnson pointed out in a 2010 paper that the CBO had neglected to net out financial assets. If you did that, it took the debt/DGP ratio to a lever that the scaremongers could not depict as troublesome, 82%." (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/cbo-still-pushing-deficit-scaremongering-propaganda.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/cbo-still-pushing-de...) Oh look. They "forgot" not net out financial assets in a way that conveniently providid deficit hawks more 'useful' data. That's A) deceptive? or B) not deceptive? You tell me. For the Fed their strong objections to the audit and the long series of absolutely bullshit reasons they gave in an attempt to prevent it and the data that was subsequently revealed when those objections failed paint a pretty clear picture of whose side they were really on. It was the banks that wanted that audit prevented and the data was embarrassing for them because it revealed the true extent of their bailouts. So yeah, both institutions align ideologically with those big bank economists whom you just told me you don't trust. You're familiar with the idea of "regulatory capture" I presume? Well, dig slightly below the surface of the output of these two institutions and it gets revealed in all of its nasty glory. I have no doubt that their ideological bias could be shifted if the center of power in Washington moved, however. The CBO and Fed could be made impartial and objective, but the idea that they are right now is laughable. >I read your original comment as saying that we should have gone to the unions as our sole source of economic advice. I think that's a terrible idea. I've no doubt a lot of people think that. People who would see their power diminished and those who consume their tasty kool aid alike. The fact remains that the economy is built upon people who work - rather than own - for a living and that is who unions represent. Banks represent the opposite. When this used to be more predominant (e.g. the 1950s), the economy was performing considerably better than it is now, and if you think that the actual policy reaction to the 2008 crisis was in any way appropriate you are either smoking some heavy shit or a beneficiary.