3 ms·

>> Macro is literally no better than astrology, Macroeconomics: "Macroeconomics is a branch of economics that studies how an overall economy—the market or oth

>> Macro is literally no better than astrology, Macroeconomics: "Macroeconomics is a branch of economics that studies how an overall economy—the market or other systems that operate on a large scale—behaves" Astrology: "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects" Astrology is irredeemable. If current macroeconomics is no better than astrology, that is an opportunity. >> Micro can be pretty useful to individuals This is the crazy part. Micro relies on assumptions that just aren't true. Micro is much closer to astrology than macro. If you build an extensive mathematical framework on top of assumptions that are not just false, but sort of crazy, you've got nothing.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Micro relies on assumptions that just aren't true I'm going to assume this refers to the rational actor assumption? If so, it's like Econ 102 that this is an Econ 101 simplifying assumption, similar to our ignorance of friction and turbulence in Physics 101.
- worik 4y ago
  > I'm going to assume this refers to the rational actor assumption? Yes. And: * More is better * Demand curves are smooth * Demand curves are deterministic * Everything happens on the margin * Information is free * Ethics does not influence behaviour. * Nature allows steady states That are the flawed assumptions just off of the top of my head. If you spend years studying economics (like I did) then some these assumptions get questioned some of the time. But they all break down, regularly. The micro economic models work in snapshots, but the interesting part is in the breakdown. The models are useful when they are not very interesting.
  - zubiaur 4y ago
    “I love the observation that in Chapter 1 of an economics textbook, they'll say, 'We're just describing people as they are. People are rational, and this is how it goes.' And then, in Chapter 2, they'll say, 'And most people fail to'--you know, 'respect the sunk costs.' And they never even notice that there's a small tension there.” — Mary Hirschfeld, discussing her book, Aquinas and the market. She touches on a lot of the points you mention.
jrm4 4y ago
I guess what I would say on this is: Consider your average Microeconomics 101 and Macroeconomics 101. Micro will probably give the average person a few useful tools for business, because it's pretty easy to see where the model is just a model, but basic supply/demand stuff might come in handy. Macro, on the other hand, will literally make you dumber.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  This seems exactly backward. Macro is the useful one based on data, micro is the hand-wavy made up stuff based on assumptions of human behavior.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Don't look at the inputs, look at the outputs. Good data in still equals garbage out if your models are no good.
jrm4 4y ago
Dictionary definitions? This observation suffers from the exact same problem that economics does. Theory and practice are very often completely different.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Micro relies on assumptions that just aren't true I'm going to assume this refers to the rational actor assumption? If so, it's like Econ 102 that this is an Econ 101 simplifying assumption, similar to our ignorance of friction and turbulence in Physics 101.

worik 4y ago
> I'm going to assume this refers to the rational actor assumption? Yes. And: * More is better * Demand curves are smooth * Demand curves are deterministic * Everything happens on the margin * Information is free * Ethics does not influence behaviour. * Nature allows steady states That are the flawed assumptions just off of the top of my head. If you spend years studying economics (like I did) then some these assumptions get questioned some of the time. But they all break down, regularly. The micro economic models work in snapshots, but the interesting part is in the breakdown. The models are useful when they are not very interesting.
- zubiaur 4y ago
  “I love the observation that in Chapter 1 of an economics textbook, they'll say, 'We're just describing people as they are. People are rational, and this is how it goes.' And then, in Chapter 2, they'll say, 'And most people fail to'--you know, 'respect the sunk costs.' And they never even notice that there's a small tension there.” — Mary Hirschfeld, discussing her book, Aquinas and the market. She touches on a lot of the points you mention.

jrm4 4y ago

I guess what I would say on this is: Consider your average Microeconomics 101 and Macroeconomics 101. Micro will probably give the average person a few useful tools for business, because it's pretty easy to see where the model is just a model, but basic supply/demand stuff might come in handy. Macro, on the other hand, will literally make you dumber.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
This seems exactly backward. Macro is the useful one based on data, micro is the hand-wavy made up stuff based on assumptions of human behavior.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Don't look at the inputs, look at the outputs. Good data in still equals garbage out if your models are no good.

jrm4 4y ago

Dictionary definitions? This observation suffers from the exact same problem that economics does. Theory and practice are very often completely different.