4 ms·

Of course, there is consensus in economics. It's a field which is mostly interested in models and anyone can agree that a model is consistant and implies surpr

Of course, there is consensus in economics. It's a field which is mostly interested in models and anyone can agree that a model is consistant and implies surprising things even if they think the hypotheses it makes don't faithfully represent reality. It's endlessly fascinating to me how some people will happily disparage economics while having very little idea of what it's actually about.

331c8c71 1y ago
Modelling isn't the higher intellectual pursuit it's made out to be. Imo designing theoretical models post-hoc to "support" a desired conclusion is not unheard of in econ/finance.
- astrange 1y ago
  The 2019 economics prize went to empirical research. The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) are usually more obviously pursuing an agenda, but they definitely usually don't have better empirical evidence.
  - lanfeust6 1y ago
    The bait-and-switch rhetorical tactics from the cranks like "not a science" is to feign that empirical evidence doesn't exist (for thee) and therefore we should embrace ideology (theirs). This is why the Is-ought problem is frequently brought up. Though this mostly only flies in sloppy online space; in academia, progressives became Rawls acolytes and eschewed Marx, because of baggage and serious errors that can't be overcome. This seems to have translated to a chimera everything-bagel ideology on social media, where they're Rawlsian (qua social justice) but also many don't want to give up Marx, 'cause Capitalism bad, and this doesn't square.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    > The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) L M A O M A O Mate, this is not physics. This is not a field with a measurable reality where you can, in fact, say that those who reject the empirical evidence are cranks. Economics allows for multiple incompatible interpretations of the same empirical observations. Economics has several characteristics that make it unlike other sciences: basically the "underlying observable" is not an objective thing with an independent existence; unlike an atom, the object of economics changes when it's being studied and changes with the underlying changes in political and economic structure. Even its aims are open for discussion! Economics has more in common with sociology or philosophy than any of the hard sciences. It's easy to see, if nothing else, because economic theories fall in and out of fashion just like political ideologies do. I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with non-mainstream economics, or to criticise it on some concrete grounds. But to pretend anyone who disagrees with $current_view is a crank... Well it's symptomatic of the quasi-orwellian reality which certain sectors want to impose: it's not enough to say "ours is the right way", they want to say "ours is the only possible way".
- I-M-S 1y ago
  Precisely. To quote the famous economic dictum: it works in practice, but does it work in theory?
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  It's tautological but models are models. It doesn't really change anything to their inherent value that you build them from the hypotheses up or from the conclusions down. It holds the same that this set of interactions lead to this behaviour. Sometimes going down can be equally interesting: "What would a system where tariff improves the overall well being of a country inhabitants look like?". Contrast the model requirements with empirical data and you have an interesting paper.
andrepd 1y ago
How is making a factual assertion (there is no conseusus in the discipline of economics) somehow "disparaging economics"???? There is no consensus, unlike harder sciences such as physics or biology, and like social sciences such as sociology or anthropology. Because economics is the latter and not the former. And please do me the favour of not assuming I "have very little idea of what it's actually about". It's contrary to the site guidelines (and it's very annoying).

331c8c71 1y ago

Modelling isn't the higher intellectual pursuit it's made out to be. Imo designing theoretical models post-hoc to "support" a desired conclusion is not unheard of in econ/finance.

astrange 1y ago
The 2019 economics prize went to empirical research. The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) are usually more obviously pursuing an agenda, but they definitely usually don't have better empirical evidence.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  The bait-and-switch rhetorical tactics from the cranks like "not a science" is to feign that empirical evidence doesn't exist (for thee) and therefore we should embrace ideology (theirs). This is why the Is-ought problem is frequently brought up. Though this mostly only flies in sloppy online space; in academia, progressives became Rawls acolytes and eschewed Marx, because of baggage and serious errors that can't be overcome. This seems to have translated to a chimera everything-bagel ideology on social media, where they're Rawlsian (qua social justice) but also many don't want to give up Marx, 'cause Capitalism bad, and this doesn't square.
- andrepd 1y ago
  > The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) L M A O M A O Mate, this is not physics. This is not a field with a measurable reality where you can, in fact, say that those who reject the empirical evidence are cranks. Economics allows for multiple incompatible interpretations of the same empirical observations. Economics has several characteristics that make it unlike other sciences: basically the "underlying observable" is not an objective thing with an independent existence; unlike an atom, the object of economics changes when it's being studied and changes with the underlying changes in political and economic structure. Even its aims are open for discussion! Economics has more in common with sociology or philosophy than any of the hard sciences. It's easy to see, if nothing else, because economic theories fall in and out of fashion just like political ideologies do. I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with non-mainstream economics, or to criticise it on some concrete grounds. But to pretend anyone who disagrees with $current_view is a crank... Well it's symptomatic of the quasi-orwellian reality which certain sectors want to impose: it's not enough to say "ours is the right way", they want to say "ours is the only possible way".
I-M-S 1y ago
Precisely. To quote the famous economic dictum: it works in practice, but does it work in theory?
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
It's tautological but models are models. It doesn't really change anything to their inherent value that you build them from the hypotheses up or from the conclusions down. It holds the same that this set of interactions lead to this behaviour. Sometimes going down can be equally interesting: "What would a system where tariff improves the overall well being of a country inhabitants look like?". Contrast the model requirements with empirical data and you have an interesting paper.

andrepd 1y ago

How is making a factual assertion (there is no conseusus in the discipline of economics) somehow "disparaging economics"???? There is no consensus, unlike harder sciences such as physics or biology, and like social sciences such as sociology or anthropology. Because economics is the latter and not the former. And please do me the favour of not assuming I "have very little idea of what it's actually about". It's contrary to the site guidelines (and it's very annoying).