5 ms·

I know research is hard, and these issues are fraught with complexities and challenges in acquiring data, but it still boggles my mind just how many macro econo

I know research is hard, and these issues are fraught with complexities and challenges in acquiring data, but it still boggles my mind just how many macro economic theories don't have strong empirical data to support them.

rtkwe 6y ago
It's because it's trying to create simple formulas for a complex system with people involved at all levels.
coldtea 6y ago
What if the strong empirical data were against the interests of the rich and powerful? They couldn't afford to base policy on those then!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gridlockd 6y ago
How much empirical data do you need to convince yourself that jumping out of a window with an umbrella is unsafe? Everybody can understand that employing people at a loss is unsustainable and that the goal of employers is to make a profit. I think there's plenty of empirical data for that, the rest just follows logically. Of course there's bound to be a narrow range where you can move some profits into wages and you have neither rising prices nor unemployment, but that number is going to be different for every location, every sector and every business. I wouldn't trust politicians to come up with a magic number here.
- CoolGuySteve 6y ago
  > How much empirical data do you need to convince yourself that jumping out of a window with an umbrella is unsafe? A non-zero amount, at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Maybe he was just holding it wrong.
fragsworth 6y ago
It is basically impossible to produce real empirical evidence in economics. You can look at data/correlations, and try to reason about cause and effect. But real empirical evidence requires you use the scientific method to test hypotheses (ideally done in a double-blind way), which is impossible for economists to do even if we had a national desire to do it, because the test itself would impact reality for its participants too much. It's similar to the "observer effect" in physics, but on a massive scale. At best, I think you can create mathematical simulations built on certain assumptions about reality. Those simulations depend on how well the assumptions model reality, and very easy to miss an important detail.
- ipnon 6y ago
  AI researchers are important for this reason. Super intelligence, even if limited to simulations, can find results outside of the mainstream that are more optimal than the economic convention.[1] [1] https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-economist/ https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-economist/

rtkwe 6y ago

It's because it's trying to create simple formulas for a complex system with people involved at all levels.

coldtea 6y ago

What if the strong empirical data were against the interests of the rich and powerful? They couldn't afford to base policy on those then!

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gridlockd 6y ago

How much empirical data do you need to convince yourself that jumping out of a window with an umbrella is unsafe? Everybody can understand that employing people at a loss is unsustainable and that the goal of employers is to make a profit. I think there's plenty of empirical data for that, the rest just follows logically. Of course there's bound to be a narrow range where you can move some profits into wages and you have neither rising prices nor unemployment, but that number is going to be different for every location, every sector and every business. I wouldn't trust politicians to come up with a magic number here.

CoolGuySteve 6y ago
> How much empirical data do you need to convince yourself that jumping out of a window with an umbrella is unsafe? A non-zero amount, at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Maybe he was just holding it wrong.

fragsworth 6y ago

It is basically impossible to produce real empirical evidence in economics. You can look at data/correlations, and try to reason about cause and effect. But real empirical evidence requires you use the scientific method to test hypotheses (ideally done in a double-blind way), which is impossible for economists to do even if we had a national desire to do it, because the test itself would impact reality for its participants too much. It's similar to the "observer effect" in physics, but on a massive scale. At best, I think you can create mathematical simulations built on certain assumptions about reality. Those simulations depend on how well the assumptions model reality, and very easy to miss an important detail.

ipnon 6y ago
AI researchers are important for this reason. Super intelligence, even if limited to simulations, can find results outside of the mainstream that are more optimal than the economic convention.[1] [1] https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-economist/ https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-economist/