4 ms·

>You cannot simplify anything at the macroeconomic-level to an equation or theorem with a handful of variables or concepts, which macroeconomists want to do. T

>You cannot simplify anything at the macroeconomic-level to an equation or theorem with a handful of variables or concepts, which macroeconomists want to do. They do this in a 101 class. They absolutely do not use "a handful of variables or concepts" when they're setting policy.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Who is "they" and what policy are you referring to? Folks at central banks setting monetary policy? Advisors/elected officials who decide fiscal policy? Regulators at various agencies deciding regulatory policy? Something else?
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  I thought it would be clear that I was talking about macroeconomists in general, just like GP.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    Practically zero economists set policy, the exception being that central banks tend to have a decent number of them. Mostly they publish papers and talk.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      Economist here. The field has people that are involved in many policy settings, usually in an advisory capacity but often at the helm.
      - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        Yup, that's covered in "writing papers and talking". The context of the conversation is the use of simple models or large complex models and predictive capabilities. I know a couple folks who are policy advisors - and they don't whip out a giant model with 1000's of variables and then have someone actually setting policy look at said model and make a decision. On top of that, it's rarely a single person "setting policy". So, the idea that economists use large models to set policy is basically nonsense.
        SantalBlush 3y ago
        I understand that one can argue semantically whether advisors are "setting policy", but that's not a productive thread to follow, because it isn't relevant to my point. We are all aware that macroeconomists aren't voting "aye" and "nay" in the capitol, and it's a dishonest representation of my comment to ever pretend that I was suggesting that. Anyone who is interested in a good-faith discussion around here is perfectly capable of understanding my point and responding with a substantive comment, just like those who want to argue for argument's sake are able to intentionally misunderstand. Have a good day.
        danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        It's not a semantic issue, in practice the comment you responded to is more correct than not. The "in 101" etc comment is condescending, and more wrong than right. There are two fairly distinct realities - economists are in fact calling the shots at central banks, usually, and the analysis is more complex. But the rest of policy setting is not, and it's the majority.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago

Who is "they" and what policy are you referring to? Folks at central banks setting monetary policy? Advisors/elected officials who decide fiscal policy? Regulators at various agencies deciding regulatory policy? Something else?

SantalBlush 3y ago
I thought it would be clear that I was talking about macroeconomists in general, just like GP.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Practically zero economists set policy, the exception being that central banks tend to have a decent number of them. Mostly they publish papers and talk.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Economist here. The field has people that are involved in many policy settings, usually in an advisory capacity but often at the helm.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      Yup, that's covered in "writing papers and talking". The context of the conversation is the use of simple models or large complex models and predictive capabilities. I know a couple folks who are policy advisors - and they don't whip out a giant model with 1000's of variables and then have someone actually setting policy look at said model and make a decision. On top of that, it's rarely a single person "setting policy". So, the idea that economists use large models to set policy is basically nonsense.
      - SantalBlush 3y ago
        I understand that one can argue semantically whether advisors are "setting policy", but that's not a productive thread to follow, because it isn't relevant to my point. We are all aware that macroeconomists aren't voting "aye" and "nay" in the capitol, and it's a dishonest representation of my comment to ever pretend that I was suggesting that. Anyone who is interested in a good-faith discussion around here is perfectly capable of understanding my point and responding with a substantive comment, just like those who want to argue for argument's sake are able to intentionally misunderstand. Have a good day.
        danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        It's not a semantic issue, in practice the comment you responded to is more correct than not. The "in 101" etc comment is condescending, and more wrong than right. There are two fairly distinct realities - economists are in fact calling the shots at central banks, usually, and the analysis is more complex. But the rest of policy setting is not, and it's the majority.