6 ms·

"The more interesting question is why? Why the false expertise? Why the heir of authority? Why the certainty?. The conversations tend to be extremely emotional

"The more interesting question is why? Why the false expertise? Why the heir of authority? Why the certainty?. The conversations tend to be extremely emotional and defensive. This doesn’t happen in other fields. Programmers love to talk about quantum physics, the speed of light, and black holes. But you won’t find geeks getting all authoritative on the finer points of the event horizon? Why? Because that shit is complicated, beyond their knowledge, and they know it. This doesn’t happen with macroeconomics. Don’t kid yourself. It’s complicated, too. And it’s beyond your knowledge. So what’s the difference? Here’s my theory. Macro-economics is: Easy to grasp (the basic principles, anyway) Experiments are pretty much impossible (making being disproven relatively rare) The first makes you think you are an expert, and the second removes any fear you have of being wrong." A cynic might observe that all of this is true of both the author and professional economists (and other soft scientists). Many of their theories cannot be tested, presumably this fact ought to temper their certainty. As far as I can tell, it doesn't. No lack of certainty is evident in this post. The author's chief defense of academic economic hypothesis is they are complicated. I have not had much patience for the "its complicated, trust us" idea since Catholic school. Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack.

jacoblyles 18y ago
Will Wilkinson's blog has been tracking how professional economist opinion on the bailout tends to follow their political views. On issues like free trade and price controls there is little disagreement among economists. But in macroeconomics the professional debate isn't much better than the layman debate.
- nsrivast 18y ago
  So at the very least, we should try to build consensus in the layman debate against price controls and for free trade. Angry letters to congressmen supporting "Buy American" clauses and all that, with the strength of the Ron Paul groundswell.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- likpok 18y ago
  The main issue is that unlike micro or other sciences, there are no experiments. Which is somewhat frightening. There have been something like five or so actual macroeconomic experiments performed. There is no precedent for what we have done, and for what we are doing. Even the most knowledgeable macro people are still limited by the fact that their models have little evidence tying them to reality (look at the debate between neoclassicists and Keynsians today). Macroeconomics people are somewhat stuck, they don't have enough information, they don't necessarily have consistent models. As a result, it's hard to tell the difference between the nutjobs and the experts. And that gives the nutjobs a large sway where they otherwise wouldn't. Furthermore, basic economics is taught to a lot of people (I learned it in high school), which gives them the (false) idea that it is easy (which high school/intro college econ is).
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    Micro was pretty well established before experimental schools of thought came around.
lbrandy 18y ago
Author here. First, I did say, but perhaps not strong enough, that I include myself in the list of people who do not what they are talking about (or, more properly, in the group of people that do not have strong opinions). I’ve done a fair bit of reading on topics like the Federal Reserve and money creation, like any good amateur, and the only thing I know for certain is that it’s insanely complex. More importantly, however, you've missed my point. Nowhere did I want to claim that you shouldn't have opinions, beliefs, or the desire to argue about topics you are interested in, even as an amateur. "Its complicated, trust us" is not my point. It's missed my point by a wide margin. My point is that bringing a false sense of expertise, or authority to the issue makes the discussions worthless and turns them into flamewars. People in online discussions want to pretend they are experts in macroeconomic theory. That makes them defensive and emotional. That makes the discussions uninteresting.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Can you point to any negative examples of such discussions? No doubt the web is full of stupid discussions, but I mean specifically on geek sites like HN?
  - lbrandy 18y ago
    Alright, at the bottom of this thread is a downmodded discussions about macroeconomics (started by someone who read only the last paragraph of my post and decided to argue with me about my facetious assertions). Last week, there was a post here about the youtube video "money as debt" that ended up getting killed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=461720 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=461720 Equally, you could peruse Reddit (espsecially, say, politics). I don't know about digg, because I stopped going there for awhile, but it was as bad as reddit is now. Now, you could argue that these discussions are all fairly above board, with none of the emotion-laden rhetoric that I appear to see. I'd disagree though but we can leave that as a matter of perspective. I think there is an -obvious- tonal difference in matters of economics (or politics, or religion) versus other topics.
    - Tichy 18y ago
ellyagg 18y ago
> The author's chief defense of academic economic hypothesis is they are complicated. I have not had much patience for the "its complicated, trust us" idea since Catholic school. The author didn't make a defense of "academic economic hypothesis". He made an attack on geeks' false sense of expertise on macroeconomics. Macroeconomics remains a giant, complex, poorly understood system regardless of whether there are academic economic models of it. It's not like "academic economic hypothesis" creates the system. The system is there regardless. It's hard to understand, but lots of people run around pretending they understand it. > Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack. Presumably you note the irony of making an ad hominem attack while simultaneously rebuking the author for making an ad hominem attack. In actuality, your ad hominem was far less called for because the author's "ad hominem" was the whole point. He was arguing that the quality of debate is poor, not arguing against any particular line of reasoning. On a side note, it's disappointing that there's been so much made recently of the high quality of discussion on Hacker News and how we need to preserve it, and yet rubbish like "maybe even using vaguely correct grammar" still gets voted sharply up. Some day I truly hope to find a popular forum of well-informed members where snide comments are penalized as a natural side-effect of the forum design.
- mattmcknight 18y ago
  "It's not like 'academic economic hypothesis' creates the system. The system is there regardless." I agree that it doesn't create the system, but the publicity of of these hypotheses do affect the system, by affecting the behavior of the people that participate in the system. If someone believes that gold or the US dollar has more or less value based on some understanding of the increase in the money supply, that will affect their values, particularly if the people with those beliefs run the US Federal Reserve.
baguasquirrel 18y ago
Does being a cynic make you smarter? That something is difficult to verify does not make it any less important to study, and it is wrong for us to attack the social sciences in this regard. I too do not have much patience for the "it's complicated, trust us" attitude. But the author's remarks are less a "trust us" defense of econ as they are a suggestion that we should get a balanced education into the matter before we get all strong-headed. That aside, economics is difficult to verify, but there does exist a branch of science called experimental economics. There was one particularly interesting "study" that ought to catch your attention. http://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/0335.html http://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/0335.html That one study on its own should explain the need for a Federal Reserve Bank.
- baguasquirrel 18y ago
  Found a link that more readily explains the experiment. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/depressions http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/depressions
rm999 18y ago
"Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack." I disagree, because his post wasn't about macroeconomics per se, it was about a large number of otherwise rational people on geek sites espousing controversial opinions on a complicated subject without the proper education, with too much confidence. This post could have been about evolution too, and it still would have been valid. Just a lot more controversial, because NO ONE will admit that their opinion on evolution may be wrong.

jacoblyles 18y ago

Will Wilkinson's blog has been tracking how professional economist opinion on the bailout tends to follow their political views. On issues like free trade and price controls there is little disagreement among economists. But in macroeconomics the professional debate isn't much better than the layman debate.

nsrivast 18y ago
So at the very least, we should try to build consensus in the layman debate against price controls and for free trade. Angry letters to congressmen supporting "Buy American" clauses and all that, with the strength of the Ron Paul groundswell.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
likpok 18y ago
The main issue is that unlike micro or other sciences, there are no experiments. Which is somewhat frightening. There have been something like five or so actual macroeconomic experiments performed. There is no precedent for what we have done, and for what we are doing. Even the most knowledgeable macro people are still limited by the fact that their models have little evidence tying them to reality (look at the debate between neoclassicists and Keynsians today). Macroeconomics people are somewhat stuck, they don't have enough information, they don't necessarily have consistent models. As a result, it's hard to tell the difference between the nutjobs and the experts. And that gives the nutjobs a large sway where they otherwise wouldn't. Furthermore, basic economics is taught to a lot of people (I learned it in high school), which gives them the (false) idea that it is easy (which high school/intro college econ is).
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Micro was pretty well established before experimental schools of thought came around.

lbrandy 18y ago

Author here. First, I did say, but perhaps not strong enough, that I include myself in the list of people who do not what they are talking about (or, more properly, in the group of people that do not have strong opinions). I’ve done a fair bit of reading on topics like the Federal Reserve and money creation, like any good amateur, and the only thing I know for certain is that it’s insanely complex. More importantly, however, you've missed my point. Nowhere did I want to claim that you shouldn't have opinions, beliefs, or the desire to argue about topics you are interested in, even as an amateur. "Its complicated, trust us" is not my point. It's missed my point by a wide margin. My point is that bringing a false sense of expertise, or authority to the issue makes the discussions worthless and turns them into flamewars. People in online discussions want to pretend they are experts in macroeconomic theory. That makes them defensive and emotional. That makes the discussions uninteresting.

Tichy 18y ago
Can you point to any negative examples of such discussions? No doubt the web is full of stupid discussions, but I mean specifically on geek sites like HN?
- lbrandy 18y ago
  Alright, at the bottom of this thread is a downmodded discussions about macroeconomics (started by someone who read only the last paragraph of my post and decided to argue with me about my facetious assertions). Last week, there was a post here about the youtube video "money as debt" that ended up getting killed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=461720 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=461720 Equally, you could peruse Reddit (espsecially, say, politics). I don't know about digg, because I stopped going there for awhile, but it was as bad as reddit is now. Now, you could argue that these discussions are all fairly above board, with none of the emotion-laden rhetoric that I appear to see. I'd disagree though but we can leave that as a matter of perspective. I think there is an -obvious- tonal difference in matters of economics (or politics, or religion) versus other topics.
  - Tichy 18y ago

ellyagg 18y ago

> The author's chief defense of academic economic hypothesis is they are complicated. I have not had much patience for the "its complicated, trust us" idea since Catholic school. The author didn't make a defense of "academic economic hypothesis". He made an attack on geeks' false sense of expertise on macroeconomics. Macroeconomics remains a giant, complex, poorly understood system regardless of whether there are academic economic models of it. It's not like "academic economic hypothesis" creates the system. The system is there regardless. It's hard to understand, but lots of people run around pretending they understand it. > Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack. Presumably you note the irony of making an ad hominem attack while simultaneously rebuking the author for making an ad hominem attack. In actuality, your ad hominem was far less called for because the author's "ad hominem" was the whole point. He was arguing that the quality of debate is poor, not arguing against any particular line of reasoning. On a side note, it's disappointing that there's been so much made recently of the high quality of discussion on Hacker News and how we need to preserve it, and yet rubbish like "maybe even using vaguely correct grammar" still gets voted sharply up. Some day I truly hope to find a popular forum of well-informed members where snide comments are penalized as a natural side-effect of the forum design.

mattmcknight 18y ago
"It's not like 'academic economic hypothesis' creates the system. The system is there regardless." I agree that it doesn't create the system, but the publicity of of these hypotheses do affect the system, by affecting the behavior of the people that participate in the system. If someone believes that gold or the US dollar has more or less value based on some understanding of the increase in the money supply, that will affect their values, particularly if the people with those beliefs run the US Federal Reserve.

baguasquirrel 18y ago

Does being a cynic make you smarter? That something is difficult to verify does not make it any less important to study, and it is wrong for us to attack the social sciences in this regard. I too do not have much patience for the "it's complicated, trust us" attitude. But the author's remarks are less a "trust us" defense of econ as they are a suggestion that we should get a balanced education into the matter before we get all strong-headed. That aside, economics is difficult to verify, but there does exist a branch of science called experimental economics. There was one particularly interesting "study" that ought to catch your attention. http://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/0335.html http://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/0335.html That one study on its own should explain the need for a Federal Reserve Bank.

baguasquirrel 18y ago
Found a link that more readily explains the experiment. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/depressions http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/depressions

rm999 18y ago

"Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack." I disagree, because his post wasn't about macroeconomics per se, it was about a large number of otherwise rational people on geek sites espousing controversial opinions on a complicated subject without the proper education, with too much confidence. This post could have been about evolution too, and it still would have been valid. Just a lot more controversial, because NO ONE will admit that their opinion on evolution may be wrong.