4 ms·

> What I’m really after are non-ideological macroeconomics books Not possible by definition. Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapabl

> What I’m really after are non-ideological macroeconomics books Not possible by definition. Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapable of prediction. Therefore, it's all ideology (rock fell on my head, must have offended god of rocks, only logical explanation).

anonporridge 4y ago
> Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapable of prediction. I would expand on this a bit. The problem with economics is that it's the study of a type 2 chaotic system, where predictions about the system themselves feedback into the system and change the outcome. Contrasted with a type 1 chaotic system, like weather, where predictions are extremely difficult but can be made without affecting the outcome. Economics is chaotic because conscious actors are extremely unpredictable and change their behavior based on new information. This is something you have to bear in mind whenever you hear an economist or government official make a prediction. The very act of making the prediction public often becomes a self defeating prophecy, because masses of people and money make changes to their future behavior based on the prediction. Also called the Prophet's Dilemma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prophecy. A close relative of the Preparedness Paradox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox This is why some of the best predictions are never made public. The best traders don't sell you their strategy. Because as soon as their prediction mechanism becomes too public, it gets absorbed into the system and arbitraged away to worthlessness. That's also why you always must take what government officials say with a grain of salt. They're often not telling you what they really think is going to happen. They're telling you what they think is going to motivate the population to behave in the most productive way given the current environment. Making economic predictions is a grand game of "I know that you know that I know that you know". It's a game of mass manipulation rather than a technical pursuit of simple measurement. It's an art, not a science.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > study of a type 2 chaotic system The reason it's chaotic is not just because predictions about it feed back into it. It is also a weather-type chaotic system. > It's an art, not a science. That may well be. However, he question that really matters is : is it useful at all? As demonstrated time and again, this whole legend about hidden winning strategies may very well be utter and complete BS: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffetts-bet-hedge-funds-year-eight-brka-brkb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe...
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    It has aspects of weather like behavior. Plus climate behavior in that chaotic systems can jump from one semistable pattern to another. And then point events. A virus jumps from bats to humans. Some dictator decides for his own internal reasons to start a war. The pace of technology isn't predictable or even possible to predict. Referring to something above. Economics would be a lot better if it focused on historical happenings and stopped trying to pretend it's a hard science like physics.
lottin 4y ago
> Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapable of prediction. > > Therefore, it's all ideology Can you give us an example of a macro or microeconomic model that is incapable of prediction and it's (therefore?) all ideology? I can't think of none off the top of my head.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  unlike physics, and somewhat unlike chemistry, there is no direct causal relationship, instead it is systems of systems with new, unpredictable events entering into most of the them constantly. The time window for a prediction is also crucial, because the same set of decisions and rules in one era have different results in another era. Economists preside over this cacophony with a lot of measurements and news items. Occasionally something really worthy comes out, but the daily arguing and posturing is quite a turkey show, IMHO. Thomas Piketty got a prize recently.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > give us an example of a macro or microeconomic model that is incapable of prediction and it's (therefore?) all ideology? Generally, the more a theory talks about how the past actually happened the more it's ideology than falsifiable science. Take Marxism. It's largely a history of class struggles. There are testable bits, e.g. the labor theory of value (which is wrong). But most of it is unfalsifiable. Similar to the barter-then-money origin of money story, which offers zero predictive value while also being archaeologically unsupported.
  - unmole 4y ago
    Neither Marxism nor the origin of money are of any interest to most economists. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Neither Marxism nor the origin of money are of any interest to most economists. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. That topics of no interest to modern economists occupy the bulk of popular discourse concerning it.

anonporridge 4y ago

> Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapable of prediction. I would expand on this a bit. The problem with economics is that it's the study of a type 2 chaotic system, where predictions about the system themselves feedback into the system and change the outcome. Contrasted with a type 1 chaotic system, like weather, where predictions are extremely difficult but can be made without affecting the outcome. Economics is chaotic because conscious actors are extremely unpredictable and change their behavior based on new information. This is something you have to bear in mind whenever you hear an economist or government official make a prediction. The very act of making the prediction public often becomes a self defeating prophecy, because masses of people and money make changes to their future behavior based on the prediction. Also called the Prophet's Dilemma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prophecy. A close relative of the Preparedness Paradox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox This is why some of the best predictions are never made public. The best traders don't sell you their strategy. Because as soon as their prediction mechanism becomes too public, it gets absorbed into the system and arbitraged away to worthlessness. That's also why you always must take what government officials say with a grain of salt. They're often not telling you what they really think is going to happen. They're telling you what they think is going to motivate the population to behave in the most productive way given the current environment. Making economic predictions is a grand game of "I know that you know that I know that you know". It's a game of mass manipulation rather than a technical pursuit of simple measurement. It's an art, not a science.

ur-whale 4y ago
> study of a type 2 chaotic system The reason it's chaotic is not just because predictions about it feed back into it. It is also a weather-type chaotic system. > It's an art, not a science. That may well be. However, he question that really matters is : is it useful at all? As demonstrated time and again, this whole legend about hidden winning strategies may very well be utter and complete BS: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffetts-bet-hedge-funds-year-eight-brka-brkb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe...
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  It has aspects of weather like behavior. Plus climate behavior in that chaotic systems can jump from one semistable pattern to another. And then point events. A virus jumps from bats to humans. Some dictator decides for his own internal reasons to start a war. The pace of technology isn't predictable or even possible to predict. Referring to something above. Economics would be a lot better if it focused on historical happenings and stopped trying to pretend it's a hard science like physics.

lottin 4y ago

> Economics is about explaining things after the fact, and incapable of prediction. > > Therefore, it's all ideology Can you give us an example of a macro or microeconomic model that is incapable of prediction and it's (therefore?) all ideology? I can't think of none off the top of my head.

mistrial9 4y ago
unlike physics, and somewhat unlike chemistry, there is no direct causal relationship, instead it is systems of systems with new, unpredictable events entering into most of the them constantly. The time window for a prediction is also crucial, because the same set of decisions and rules in one era have different results in another era. Economists preside over this cacophony with a lot of measurements and news items. Occasionally something really worthy comes out, but the daily arguing and posturing is quite a turkey show, IMHO. Thomas Piketty got a prize recently.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> give us an example of a macro or microeconomic model that is incapable of prediction and it's (therefore?) all ideology? Generally, the more a theory talks about how the past actually happened the more it's ideology than falsifiable science. Take Marxism. It's largely a history of class struggles. There are testable bits, e.g. the labor theory of value (which is wrong). But most of it is unfalsifiable. Similar to the barter-then-money origin of money story, which offers zero predictive value while also being archaeologically unsupported.
- unmole 4y ago
  Neither Marxism nor the origin of money are of any interest to most economists. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Neither Marxism nor the origin of money are of any interest to most economists. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. That topics of no interest to modern economists occupy the bulk of popular discourse concerning it.