4 ms·

It baffles me why an economist constantly making wrong predictions “is fine”. If their analysis leads to incorrect outcomes, what use is it? I think if you are

It baffles me why an economist constantly making wrong predictions “is fine”. If their analysis leads to incorrect outcomes, what use is it? I think if you are good, you’re a trader and told to keep your mouth shut and make money. If you’re bad but well connected, it seems you become a professor or public figure/speaker. The charts are handy all in one place, but if regularly incorrect, likely means looking at wrong data, or just using it wrong. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all, and this isn’t meant to be an attack on anyone, just an observation that I find frustrating. Seems to be very little to no negative feedback for some economists making bad predictions or analysis.

taeric 2y ago
Well, for one, you have to establish that he is constantly wrong without any reflection on his decisions? Do you have numbers showing how often he is wrong? For two, if you are punishing people for being willing to put thoughts out there, all you will succeed at is getting fewer people putting thoughts out there. Your observation here, though, is largely that public figures have public records of failures. You jump from there to the idea that they only have failures. This is as useful as thinking they only have public success. Which is clearly false.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly.
  - taeric 2y ago
    Sometimes? I'd be interested in a study on this, but it really seems that things are unsurprisingly more complicated? My gut is going to be that some reputation can be more easily laundered than others. And recency, as well as strength, of criticism will play a strong role in how bad failures impact credibility. For that matter, availability of alternatives?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      The Law of Supply and Demand is complicated, just like the Law of Gravity is. But it holds, regardless.
      - taeric 2y ago
        Supply and Demand has to largely take into effect the impacts of marketing. And, not shockingly, we go out of our way to not directly use supply/demand in some markets. (In particular, I'm looking at concert tickets. Scalping is a direct consequence of this law, yet we go through great efforts to reduce its impact.) Gravity, of course, is still one of the most mysterious forces/properties of nature. Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? To the point of this subthread, I'm not clear what your aim is. I was pushing back on the idea that public academics don't know what they are talking about. They can, of course, be wrong. But so can largely anonymous actors online. I think there is almost certainly a useful model that can explain why some people are more trusted than others. My assertion is that you will have to bring in aspects of what we call marketing. Along with a general awareness of who is driving criticism. But, specifically, relying only on having a history of pure success is easy to disprove. For an easy example, Newton was a failed alchemist, just like every other alchemist. I'm guessing you don't view him as a failure.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        I was taught in college that when a result defies the laws of physics, you did something wrong. It isn't necessary to know exactly what went wrong, but there's a mistake there. When someone asserts that the Law of Supply & Demand doesn't apply, they are wrong. I've pointed out the particular error many times to people who asserted such things. A typical one is rent control. Another is laws against price gouging. A corollary is TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can bank on it. You'd be justified in assuming I'm arrogant about this. I am. But I have an awful lot of experience with it. > Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? Look into predictions Einstein made about gravity. Not only was he correct, he was as correct as measurements could measure it. All attempts at finding exceptions to it have failed.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly. What if they also have a lot of successes? What if their successes outnumber their "a lot of failures"? Can you measure a percentage/ratio between the two? A lot of people were predicting dire consequences of QE: > We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment. * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Krugman (and others) predicted things would be fine; Krugman was right. A lot of folks predicted "expansionary austerity" would be a good thing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contractio... Krugman (and other Keynesians) thought it would be bad; Krugman et al was right: * https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-p... * https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr...
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Any economic theory that claims one can print money and spend it without inflation is another "free lunch", and their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It doesn't matter how much wants to believe it is free. See the graphs I posted links to.

taeric 2y ago

Well, for one, you have to establish that he is constantly wrong without any reflection on his decisions? Do you have numbers showing how often he is wrong? For two, if you are punishing people for being willing to put thoughts out there, all you will succeed at is getting fewer people putting thoughts out there. Your observation here, though, is largely that public figures have public records of failures. You jump from there to the idea that they only have failures. This is as useful as thinking they only have public success. Which is clearly false.

WalterBright 2y ago
If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly.
- taeric 2y ago
  Sometimes? I'd be interested in a study on this, but it really seems that things are unsurprisingly more complicated? My gut is going to be that some reputation can be more easily laundered than others. And recency, as well as strength, of criticism will play a strong role in how bad failures impact credibility. For that matter, availability of alternatives?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The Law of Supply and Demand is complicated, just like the Law of Gravity is. But it holds, regardless.
    - taeric 2y ago
      Supply and Demand has to largely take into effect the impacts of marketing. And, not shockingly, we go out of our way to not directly use supply/demand in some markets. (In particular, I'm looking at concert tickets. Scalping is a direct consequence of this law, yet we go through great efforts to reduce its impact.) Gravity, of course, is still one of the most mysterious forces/properties of nature. Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? To the point of this subthread, I'm not clear what your aim is. I was pushing back on the idea that public academics don't know what they are talking about. They can, of course, be wrong. But so can largely anonymous actors online. I think there is almost certainly a useful model that can explain why some people are more trusted than others. My assertion is that you will have to bring in aspects of what we call marketing. Along with a general awareness of who is driving criticism. But, specifically, relying only on having a history of pure success is easy to disprove. For an easy example, Newton was a failed alchemist, just like every other alchemist. I'm guessing you don't view him as a failure.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        I was taught in college that when a result defies the laws of physics, you did something wrong. It isn't necessary to know exactly what went wrong, but there's a mistake there. When someone asserts that the Law of Supply & Demand doesn't apply, they are wrong. I've pointed out the particular error many times to people who asserted such things. A typical one is rent control. Another is laws against price gouging. A corollary is TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can bank on it. You'd be justified in assuming I'm arrogant about this. I am. But I have an awful lot of experience with it. > Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? Look into predictions Einstein made about gravity. Not only was he correct, he was as correct as measurements could measure it. All attempts at finding exceptions to it have failed.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly. What if they also have a lot of successes? What if their successes outnumber their "a lot of failures"? Can you measure a percentage/ratio between the two? A lot of people were predicting dire consequences of QE: > We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment. * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Krugman (and others) predicted things would be fine; Krugman was right. A lot of folks predicted "expansionary austerity" would be a good thing: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contractio... Krugman (and other Keynesians) thought it would be bad; Krugman et al was right: * https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-p... * https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Any economic theory that claims one can print money and spend it without inflation is another "free lunch", and their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It doesn't matter how much wants to believe it is free. See the graphs I posted links to.