3 ms·

It sounds like the problem boils down to the difference between understanding a scalar (speed) and a vector (velocity). So economics would need a way to represe

by nhebb 14y ago

It sounds like the problem boils down to the difference between understanding a scalar (speed) and a vector (velocity). So economics would need a way to represent economic forces similar to the way a free body diagram is used in engineering and physics. And in order to do that, you would need an economics coordinate system. And therein lies the problem of economists building models without known or absolute reference points. Economics != Physics, QED.

cousin_it 14y ago
I think I can make up a variant of the problem that doesn't boil down to scalar vs vector. Imagine the driver is still trying to keep a constant speed, but the road is now horizontal, and the car gets slowed down by mud instead of hills.
- Evbn 14y ago
  That's exactly the same. Vector refers to directionality, not number of dimensions.
  - pseut 14y ago
    But the only thing varying is a scalar, is the point. The fact that you can write it as a vector is irrelevant.
ajuc 14y ago
Why? The analogy works just as well for temperature of water in a boiler, and the thermostat that modifies heating power inversely to the current temperature of the water. Both are scalars in that example, and the basic problem remains.
- nhebb 14y ago
  You have a point there. But going with your example, the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) still models a system where all inputs are known. While not a perfect model, it's much better for predicting the performance of a thermodynamic system than most economic models are at predicting economic systems.
  - ajuc 14y ago
    Yes, obviously. That's only a simplified analogy. Another, more complex system: temperature of human body, temperature of air and perspiration.
alanctgardner2 14y ago
Nope, absolutely not. The problem is that they have a feedback system which is attempting to maintain a constant value. This could be a driver pressing the gas, a thermostat (as listed below), or the Fed trying to modify interest rates to achieve a result. The problem is, if you do everything right, and there's no economic collapse, people wonder why you need to exist. If there is, you're clearly useless. I fall into this a lot, but I really hate the attitude of engineers and scientists believing that everything can be solved by approaching a problem a certain way. We have this idealized, fetishized approach that if you define all your axioms and have a rigid framework in place, you can solve anything. Of course, as soon as you try it in real life, especially in a field like sociology or economics (which, of course, we deride as not being scientific enough), it all goes to hell. I would recommend that anyone who is of this opinion - that economics, psychology, linguistics, et al are not scientific enough - actually take a course in that area. What you find are: people who are experts in a field are really smart, yes, they have thought of that already, no, it didn't work. It's a very humbling experience.
- cousin_it 14y ago
  > The problem is, if you do everything right, and there's no economic collapse, people wonder why you need to exist. If there is, you're clearly useless. Interesting. Can we come up with some general method of answering questions like "does institution X really play a part in keeping parameter Y stable?"
  - alanctgardner2 14y ago
    The problem is: the only way to detect this, as the article points out, is for them to stop doing their job well intentionally. You either wreck the perfectly good situation you have locally, or you find some other place where everything is terrible, and you compare the two. This is one of the reasons why scientific methods are hard to apply in non-experimental situations: you can't necessarily destroy the national economy 'to see if it would really work'. It's the same as informed consent in medical experiments, just on a larger scale.
  - dllthomas 14y ago

by nhebb 14y ago

cousin_it 14y ago

I think I can make up a variant of the problem that doesn't boil down to scalar vs vector. Imagine the driver is still trying to keep a constant speed, but the road is now horizontal, and the car gets slowed down by mud instead of hills.

Evbn 14y ago
That's exactly the same. Vector refers to directionality, not number of dimensions.
- pseut 14y ago
  But the only thing varying is a scalar, is the point. The fact that you can write it as a vector is irrelevant.

ajuc 14y ago

Why? The analogy works just as well for temperature of water in a boiler, and the thermostat that modifies heating power inversely to the current temperature of the water. Both are scalars in that example, and the basic problem remains.

nhebb 14y ago
You have a point there. But going with your example, the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) still models a system where all inputs are known. While not a perfect model, it's much better for predicting the performance of a thermodynamic system than most economic models are at predicting economic systems.
- ajuc 14y ago
  Yes, obviously. That's only a simplified analogy. Another, more complex system: temperature of human body, temperature of air and perspiration.

alanctgardner2 14y ago

Nope, absolutely not. The problem is that they have a feedback system which is attempting to maintain a constant value. This could be a driver pressing the gas, a thermostat (as listed below), or the Fed trying to modify interest rates to achieve a result. The problem is, if you do everything right, and there's no economic collapse, people wonder why you need to exist. If there is, you're clearly useless. I fall into this a lot, but I really hate the attitude of engineers and scientists believing that everything can be solved by approaching a problem a certain way. We have this idealized, fetishized approach that if you define all your axioms and have a rigid framework in place, you can solve anything. Of course, as soon as you try it in real life, especially in a field like sociology or economics (which, of course, we deride as not being scientific enough), it all goes to hell. I would recommend that anyone who is of this opinion - that economics, psychology, linguistics, et al are not scientific enough - actually take a course in that area. What you find are: people who are experts in a field are really smart, yes, they have thought of that already, no, it didn't work. It's a very humbling experience.

cousin_it 14y ago
> The problem is, if you do everything right, and there's no economic collapse, people wonder why you need to exist. If there is, you're clearly useless. Interesting. Can we come up with some general method of answering questions like "does institution X really play a part in keeping parameter Y stable?"
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  The problem is: the only way to detect this, as the article points out, is for them to stop doing their job well intentionally. You either wreck the perfectly good situation you have locally, or you find some other place where everything is terrible, and you compare the two. This is one of the reasons why scientific methods are hard to apply in non-experimental situations: you can't necessarily destroy the national economy 'to see if it would really work'. It's the same as informed consent in medical experiments, just on a larger scale.
- dllthomas 14y ago