3 ms·

>Yes. My model is: That's why I specifically said a falsifiable model. The one you provide here is intentionally vague, so its shortcomings can't be critiqued

>Yes. My model is: That's why I specifically said a falsifiable model. The one you provide here is intentionally vague, so its shortcomings can't be critiqued. >Do you think that working up some sort of IS/LM analysis is going to lead to better outcomes? Do you think that more partial differential equations are helping somehow? That's a common misunderstanding of the purpose of mathematical and empirical models. The point of their precision isn't to feign perfection, it's so we can measure exactly how wrong they are for comparison; that's why they are superior to your vague model. The models used in mainstream economics are easily disproven, which is why it's so easy to complain about them. Your model can't really be disproven or even measured at all, which places it beyond reproach. That's why I reject it. In short, you don't have a better one.

CPLX 5y ago
Of course each of these models can be measured and are falsifiable. We can try things the neoclassical way and see them predict economic growth and stability and then watch the world fucking burn and inequality metastasize as a transnational global elite siphons off the resources of the masses. Oh look, we've falsified their theory. Now we can try mine. This is called science.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Your models are neither measurable nor falsifiable. Free trade can have benefits? What benefits? How many benefits? You haven't even said. What generational harm? You don't detail it at all, so if the next generation experiences any generational harm, you can claim it's the fault of free trade even though you haven't delineated the causal relationship whatsoever. That's not science, that's just complaining.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    I mean I'm arguing on a message board, not writing a white paper. Of course there are alternate methods of analysis that are plenty rigorous and models that are alternative to neoclassical models. Whole books, schools of thought even. I'm paraphrasing badly while avoiding work. But I'm also pointing out that this line of criticism is fucking bullshit. It's like textbook for mainstream economists to say WE HAVE THE MODELS and LOOK AT MY MODELS like they're fucking something worth bragging about. Supply, demand, regressions, Edgeworth Boley boxes, you name it one thing they are never short of is models and the smug proclamations you're making here, as a kind of generic appeal to "science" and "rigor" and so on. Except they are wrong. Like really fucking wrong. Constantly, systematically wrong. So wrong that a lot of times the analysis is "not even wrong" levels of wrong. I'm being specific here. I'm talking about what used to be called the "Washington Consensus" and it's one of the dumbest fucking ideas ever promulgated by supposedly smart people. Google it if you're not familiar it's well documented. It never made sense and plenty of people pointed that out at the time and yet the 1990's were dominated by these policies and we set the stage for the world we're living in now with these catastrophically misguided ideas. So maybe every single person responsible for that should shut the fuck up and stop talking about their fucking models. Or commit some kind of ritualistic honor driven suicide even. Instead you have Larry Summers in the pages of the New York Times STILL somehow going on about how everyone should be listening to him. And Jason Furman. And plenty of others who should never again be allowed anywhere near a position of authority. This is why people fucking hate economics and economists and they have VERY good reason to. Maybe one day the discipline will be reborn and redeem itself but until then I plan on staying mad.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Yes, I do require evidence before buying someone else's opinions. The stronger the evidence, the better. Guilty as charged. You're illustrating my point. Making edgy rants about how everything sucks is easy, and that's why everyone does it. I can make perfectly valid complaints about economic models all day; there's really nothing to it. What's not so easy is putting forth a superior solution, and supporting that solution with evidence. I don't care how much you hate the field of economics if you can't convince me that you have something better.
      - CPLX 5y ago
        > What's not so easy is putting forth a superior solution, and supporting that solution with evidence. A superior solution is the status quo ante. The evidence is that neoliberal economic policies caused mass misery and instability. The analysis isn’t particularly complicated.

CPLX 5y ago

Of course each of these models can be measured and are falsifiable. We can try things the neoclassical way and see them predict economic growth and stability and then watch the world fucking burn and inequality metastasize as a transnational global elite siphons off the resources of the masses. Oh look, we've falsified their theory. Now we can try mine. This is called science.

SantalBlush 5y ago
Your models are neither measurable nor falsifiable. Free trade can have benefits? What benefits? How many benefits? You haven't even said. What generational harm? You don't detail it at all, so if the next generation experiences any generational harm, you can claim it's the fault of free trade even though you haven't delineated the causal relationship whatsoever. That's not science, that's just complaining.
- CPLX 5y ago
  I mean I'm arguing on a message board, not writing a white paper. Of course there are alternate methods of analysis that are plenty rigorous and models that are alternative to neoclassical models. Whole books, schools of thought even. I'm paraphrasing badly while avoiding work. But I'm also pointing out that this line of criticism is fucking bullshit. It's like textbook for mainstream economists to say WE HAVE THE MODELS and LOOK AT MY MODELS like they're fucking something worth bragging about. Supply, demand, regressions, Edgeworth Boley boxes, you name it one thing they are never short of is models and the smug proclamations you're making here, as a kind of generic appeal to "science" and "rigor" and so on. Except they are wrong. Like really fucking wrong. Constantly, systematically wrong. So wrong that a lot of times the analysis is "not even wrong" levels of wrong. I'm being specific here. I'm talking about what used to be called the "Washington Consensus" and it's one of the dumbest fucking ideas ever promulgated by supposedly smart people. Google it if you're not familiar it's well documented. It never made sense and plenty of people pointed that out at the time and yet the 1990's were dominated by these policies and we set the stage for the world we're living in now with these catastrophically misguided ideas. So maybe every single person responsible for that should shut the fuck up and stop talking about their fucking models. Or commit some kind of ritualistic honor driven suicide even. Instead you have Larry Summers in the pages of the New York Times STILL somehow going on about how everyone should be listening to him. And Jason Furman. And plenty of others who should never again be allowed anywhere near a position of authority. This is why people fucking hate economics and economists and they have VERY good reason to. Maybe one day the discipline will be reborn and redeem itself but until then I plan on staying mad.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Yes, I do require evidence before buying someone else's opinions. The stronger the evidence, the better. Guilty as charged. You're illustrating my point. Making edgy rants about how everything sucks is easy, and that's why everyone does it. I can make perfectly valid complaints about economic models all day; there's really nothing to it. What's not so easy is putting forth a superior solution, and supporting that solution with evidence. I don't care how much you hate the field of economics if you can't convince me that you have something better.
    - CPLX 5y ago
      > What's not so easy is putting forth a superior solution, and supporting that solution with evidence. A superior solution is the status quo ante. The evidence is that neoliberal economic policies caused mass misery and instability. The analysis isn’t particularly complicated.