6 ms·

I'm sorry but this is a bit ridiculous There are dozens of completely arbitrary assumptions and nobody could possibly know if they were anything close to being

I'm sorry but this is a bit ridiculous There are dozens of completely arbitrary assumptions and nobody could possibly know if they were anything close to being right > If you disagree, write code. Ok.. "With a Basic Job, you can’t - your choices are a Basic Job for $14480 or possibly a McJob for marginally more (say $15000). I’ll model this by assuming the number of non workers will increase by up to 5%, or decrease by up to 20%:" I disagree, I made my model assuming that the number of non-workers increases by between 60 and 80% Oh look! My results show that basic income is better! Great, that's what I believed before hand, my model must be good. edit: I'm all for mathematical modelling, but there needs to be some kind of basis for the assumptions, and it helps if there are less than a bajillion assumptions too. Anyone could tweak all the assumptions so they still sound reasonable and come up with any conclusion they wanted from this model

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Run the model with your altered assumption. The result might surprise you. http://imgur.com/KwJIZoM http://imgur.com/KwJIZoM Even with what I consider to be a wildly unrealistic assumption, the Basic Job is still cheaper than the Basic Income in well over 50% of possible worlds. I repeat: write some fucking code. Don't just say you did, actually do it.
smackay 13y ago
But writing some fucking code gives a good basis for a more informed debate since there could be a pool of models in existence which could then be refined. It also makes it a lot easier to test various assumptions and determine the sensitvity of various models. For example, take the number of non-workers a more plausible assumption is that everyone earning less than minimum wage + n, where n is the cost of maintaining the job would stop work immediately. That's a step forward from both figures used so far. A set of iPython notebooks on Github could inspire the inner economist in us all.
Bsharp 13y ago
All of your concerns are addressed in his article: > The basis of any informed discussion is a mathematical model. The best way to think of a mathematical model is a way to force everyone to clearly enumerate all assumptions being made, and to accept all logical reasoning that follows from those assumptions. Given a model, everyone involved in a discussion can agree that either the conclusions of the model are correct, or one of the assumptions going into the model must be false. This is very important when disagreement is reached - disagreement in the conclusions implies disagreement with some assumption, so it makes sense to figure out which assumption is the cause of disagreement. It’s also important not to be blinded by a model. The involvement of numbers does not make an argument empirically correct - it simply makes it more understandable and less likely to be logically flawed. He knows the limitations of mathematical modeling and is simply presenting a basic simulation of these two policies subject to various assumptions.
- zoul 13y ago
  As I understand it, the recent economic turmoils in various parts of the world seem to have shed a new light on the mathematical modelling of real economies. While the models might be a good discussion tool, forcing the parties to explicitly state various assumptions and ideas, they are essentially useless for predicting a real world economy. And what’s worse, they seem like something dependable. Isn’t it very hard to judge how much a model has to do with reality? A discussion about a model might be a perfectly scientific, constructive and relevant discussion about a theoretical world that has almost nothing to do with the real one.
  - Radim 13y ago
    No, it might not. Not unless you use the word "scientific" in some creative way. The "real world" is a necessary component for the scientific method. By comparing model predictions to real-world experiments, it allows refuting and refining models and theories. How else would you evaluate theories, to separate the chaff from the grain? The feedback from observation is absolutely vital.
    - zoul 13y ago
      Please don’t generalize my arguments to scientific method as such, I am just talking about economy. A real-world economy is a wildly nonlinear system, a bit like the weather. And there’s always something important you may fail to take into account, like the role of the private financial sector in the recent economic crisis. You may argue that we are now wiser and our models better, but the plain fact is that the degree of correspondence between our models and the real economic world is very poor. When you tweak a model for such a complex system, how do you scientifically know it’s better for predicting the future behaviour? It’s madness to think that you could reasonably model what would happen after introducing a minimal income.
      - Radim 13y ago
        I agree with you, but that changes nothing. You're basically saying that economy is not science, in the sense above. Which I agree with. It is madness. This doesn't mean that things outside science cannot be useful -- just that it's not science.
jpadkins 13y ago
I think that is the main takeaway from this article: models are useless for gaining consensus because anyone can tweak assumptions or input variables and come up with their own conclusion. I think Climate Change and Securitized Credit crisis also taught this lesson for me: people with models can persuade people into believing anything. It's just a new way to lie with statistics.
rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of doing a simulation like this is to bring the discussion down to more concrete levels. E.g. "I’ll model this by assuming the number of non workers will increase by up to 5%, or decrease by up to 20%: I disagree, I made my model assuming that the number of non-workers increases by between 60 and 80%." Okay, now instead of arguing about basic income in the abstract, you're arguing about projections of how much the number of non-workers changes. The latter is a lot more concrete and easier to analyze further.
- Bsharp 13y ago
  And in addition, after making the 60%-80% adjustment, if you still think the results look wrong, you now know that the model itself may require tweaking or redesign. I really don't understand all the negativity here.
  - ataggart 13y ago
    Because this is just mathematical cargo-cult scientism. If the basis for deciding "the model itself may require tweaking or redesign" is that "you still think the results look wrong", you're not doing science.
    - clavalle 13y ago
      You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It's not scientism. You're simply jumping to an invalid conclusion. Stucchio could not have been clearer that simple Python monte carlo models were tools for discussion, not magic oracles.
      - JackFr 13y ago
        Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Run the model with your altered assumption. The result might surprise you. http://imgur.com/KwJIZoM http://imgur.com/KwJIZoM Even with what I consider to be a wildly unrealistic assumption, the Basic Job is still cheaper than the Basic Income in well over 50% of possible worlds. I repeat: write some fucking code. Don't just say you did, actually do it.

smackay 13y ago

But writing some fucking code gives a good basis for a more informed debate since there could be a pool of models in existence which could then be refined. It also makes it a lot easier to test various assumptions and determine the sensitvity of various models. For example, take the number of non-workers a more plausible assumption is that everyone earning less than minimum wage + n, where n is the cost of maintaining the job would stop work immediately. That's a step forward from both figures used so far. A set of iPython notebooks on Github could inspire the inner economist in us all.

Bsharp 13y ago

All of your concerns are addressed in his article: > The basis of any informed discussion is a mathematical model. The best way to think of a mathematical model is a way to force everyone to clearly enumerate all assumptions being made, and to accept all logical reasoning that follows from those assumptions. Given a model, everyone involved in a discussion can agree that either the conclusions of the model are correct, or one of the assumptions going into the model must be false. This is very important when disagreement is reached - disagreement in the conclusions implies disagreement with some assumption, so it makes sense to figure out which assumption is the cause of disagreement. It’s also important not to be blinded by a model. The involvement of numbers does not make an argument empirically correct - it simply makes it more understandable and less likely to be logically flawed. He knows the limitations of mathematical modeling and is simply presenting a basic simulation of these two policies subject to various assumptions.

zoul 13y ago
As I understand it, the recent economic turmoils in various parts of the world seem to have shed a new light on the mathematical modelling of real economies. While the models might be a good discussion tool, forcing the parties to explicitly state various assumptions and ideas, they are essentially useless for predicting a real world economy. And what’s worse, they seem like something dependable. Isn’t it very hard to judge how much a model has to do with reality? A discussion about a model might be a perfectly scientific, constructive and relevant discussion about a theoretical world that has almost nothing to do with the real one.
- Radim 13y ago
  No, it might not. Not unless you use the word "scientific" in some creative way. The "real world" is a necessary component for the scientific method. By comparing model predictions to real-world experiments, it allows refuting and refining models and theories. How else would you evaluate theories, to separate the chaff from the grain? The feedback from observation is absolutely vital.
  - zoul 13y ago
    Please don’t generalize my arguments to scientific method as such, I am just talking about economy. A real-world economy is a wildly nonlinear system, a bit like the weather. And there’s always something important you may fail to take into account, like the role of the private financial sector in the recent economic crisis. You may argue that we are now wiser and our models better, but the plain fact is that the degree of correspondence between our models and the real economic world is very poor. When you tweak a model for such a complex system, how do you scientifically know it’s better for predicting the future behaviour? It’s madness to think that you could reasonably model what would happen after introducing a minimal income.
    - Radim 13y ago
      I agree with you, but that changes nothing. You're basically saying that economy is not science, in the sense above. Which I agree with. It is madness. This doesn't mean that things outside science cannot be useful -- just that it's not science.

jpadkins 13y ago

I think that is the main takeaway from this article: models are useless for gaining consensus because anyone can tweak assumptions or input variables and come up with their own conclusion. I think Climate Change and Securitized Credit crisis also taught this lesson for me: people with models can persuade people into believing anything. It's just a new way to lie with statistics.

rayiner 13y ago

The purpose of doing a simulation like this is to bring the discussion down to more concrete levels. E.g. "I’ll model this by assuming the number of non workers will increase by up to 5%, or decrease by up to 20%: I disagree, I made my model assuming that the number of non-workers increases by between 60 and 80%." Okay, now instead of arguing about basic income in the abstract, you're arguing about projections of how much the number of non-workers changes. The latter is a lot more concrete and easier to analyze further.

Bsharp 13y ago
And in addition, after making the 60%-80% adjustment, if you still think the results look wrong, you now know that the model itself may require tweaking or redesign. I really don't understand all the negativity here.
- ataggart 13y ago
  Because this is just mathematical cargo-cult scientism. If the basis for deciding "the model itself may require tweaking or redesign" is that "you still think the results look wrong", you're not doing science.
  - clavalle 13y ago
    You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It's not scientism. You're simply jumping to an invalid conclusion. Stucchio could not have been clearer that simple Python monte carlo models were tools for discussion, not magic oracles.
    - JackFr 13y ago
      Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?