9 ms·

Yeah, it's sure terrible to want people to be informed on a subject before forming an opinion on it. /sarcasm Your post boils down to: "The models are outdated

Yeah, it's sure terrible to want people to be informed on a subject before forming an opinion on it. /sarcasm Your post boils down to: "The models are outdated, so let's throw out the entire field." The thing is, the outdated models are predictive enough to be more useful than your complete lack of a proposed alternative. And even if you did propose a better model, you'd still have to understand the outdated models in order to prove that they are worse than the model you're proposing.

GFischer 11y ago
"if you did propose a better model, you'd still have to understand the outdated models in order to prove that they are worse than the model you're proposing." Maybe not. If the new model has better predictive qualities, that in itself might be a good signal :)
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  Predictive of what? On what timescales? In which situations? And why? If I'm trying to predict, say, the price of a currency over a day, I'm going to use a different model than if I'm trying to predict the price of a currency over a year, even though it's likely I could use the same models. I'd also pick different models if I knew that oil prices had just gone up 50% than I would if I knew that the S&P had downgraded the US credit rating. Which model you choose comes from an understanding of the inputs of the model, the thinking behind the model, and the situations in which the model is suitable. There's no shortcut here. In any sufficiently complex field, people without any understanding of the field don't even know what they don't know, and therefore can't form valid opinions on the field. Intelligent people whose self-esteem is partially based on their intelligence are particularly susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't fall prey to that. Recognize when you don't know something, and admit it.
NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
I don't agree. If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatologist is in no position to coerce the weather to adhere to what his models says will happen. An economist is in a position to influence the economy. And economists as a group are in a position to steer the economy in the direction of whatever their model predicts. Any predictions they make are less predictions and much closer to being promises.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatologist is in no position to coerce the weather to adhere to what his models says will happen. > And economists as a group are in a position to steer the economy in the direction of whatever their model predicts. > Any predictions they make are less predictions and much closer to being promises. Economists are in a position to coerce the economy in a direction, but I don't think that economists are in a position to coerce the economy to fit a model unless they have an accurate model (which may or may not be the same model as the first model) of the economy already. For example, I might predict that putting a 100% tax on oil will cause the stock market to rise. But that model is just wrong. I might be able to put a 100% tax on oil and then coerce the stock market to rise despite doing that, but to do that I would have to have an accurate model of the economy. An accurate model allows you to coerce the economy intentionally--without an accurate model you can take actions that will affect the economy, but you can't predict what effects your actions will have. You can't steer the economy if you don't have an accurate model of it. EDIT: There is significant incentive for economists to lie; that is, economists might publicly espouse a model they don't believe in order to steer the economy based on a model they do believe. There is also some evidence that some economists do this. However, this should not be mistaken for a proof that non-economists are better qualified to talk about the economy than economists. Ignorance is no more truthful than dishonesty.
  - irixusr 11y ago
    I don't think he meant that they can steer the economy towards validating their model. Rather that the conclusion (right or wrong that they maybe) leads to certain actions by our leaders.
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      I can only respond to what he said, not what he meant.
      - 11y ago
irixusr 11y ago
Oh, and it's not terrible to ignore people a priori? /sarcasm I'm not arguing for uninformed debate, but rather that economics as a field has huge social and moral implications. Some of these are more important than maximizing the unknowable variable of an unknown function. For example, let's say that demolishing a minority neighborhood in LA to make way for a private highway will maximize utility for all of LA. So what? Is it moral? About proposing a predictive model. I don't have to to point out flaws (not sure that I did). If A is false, I don't need to prove B to prove ~A. I concede that that it strengthen an argument. That being said, I hate to go all tin-hatter on you, but some would argue that "Peter Schieff was right" ;) He wasn't the only one, surely. But man, did he make bank!
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > Some of these are more important than maximizing the unknowable variable of an unknown function. So, maybe don't talk about maximizing unknowable variables in unknown functions. We can talk about utility functions in the abstract in a theoretical context, but once you're trying to make actual assertions, economic models aren't dealing with unknown functions, they're dealing with very specific utility functions that maximize for very specific values. When an economist talks to the public, they necessarily speak in simplified terms. But the dumbed-down version of economics that you see on TV shouldn't be mistaken for what an economist actually does. Your argument is basically "I've never seen a Bloomberg Terminal, therefore economists must just be theorizing in a void." That's not the case. > For example, let's say that demolishing a minority neighborhood in LA to make way for a private highway will maximize utility for all of LA. So what? Is it moral? If your criticism of economics is that it maximizes unknowables, maybe don't pick ethics as your example of something better? The thing is, to answer the question "Is it moral?" you can pick a lot of economic functions to look at. How will the highway effect the income of the people in the minority neighborhood? That's fundamentally an economic question. > About proposing a predictive model. I don't have to to point out flaws (not sure that I did). If A is false, I don't need to prove B to prove ~A. Predictive models are all false. The question is not whether they're false, it's what the margin of error is in relation to reality. A false predictive model with a low margin of error is useful--complete ignorance is not useful.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Excluding people from a conversation based on their education/skill makes sense in some contexts. I only want trained engineers to design and evaluate a bridge I'm going to be driving on, for instance. In others contexts, we avoid it. Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience. And of course, anyone can run for office, vote in an election, or lobby their elected officials, regardless of education or training. Where does economics fall on this spectrum? That's a pretty tough question, actually. It's a highly technical field, but the systems it measures and predicts are broadly inclusive of everyone. Is it engineering or policy? Somewhere in between. So while I appreciate how annoying it must be to trained economists to hear lay folk expound on auditing the Fed or whatever, I think the culture of the U.S. is that citizens get a say in the policy that affects them. And a lot of conversation about economics are actually about economic policy decisions.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience. Yes, they aren't educated in law, but the intent of the system is that the judicial system informs the jurors adequately for them to form opinions. I'm not trying to exclude people based on whether they have a degree. > And of course, anyone can run for office, vote in an election, or lobby their elected officials, regardless of education or training. But the intent of the system is that we elect people who are informed enough to make good decisions for us. > Where does economics fall on this spectrum? There is no spectrum, you've simply conflated formal education with being informed.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    But even if someone is uninformed, or grossly misinformed, they can still run for office, vote, talk to their members of Congress, or serve on a jury. There is no "how informed are you" test at all for those things, beyond the vague free-flowing conversation between citizens. When it comes to who should make government policy, fundamentally the questions is not "how informed is enough," the question is "who gets to decide how informed is enough." Or roughly "who watches the watchers."

GFischer 11y ago

"if you did propose a better model, you'd still have to understand the outdated models in order to prove that they are worse than the model you're proposing." Maybe not. If the new model has better predictive qualities, that in itself might be a good signal :)

copsarebastards 11y ago
Predictive of what? On what timescales? In which situations? And why? If I'm trying to predict, say, the price of a currency over a day, I'm going to use a different model than if I'm trying to predict the price of a currency over a year, even though it's likely I could use the same models. I'd also pick different models if I knew that oil prices had just gone up 50% than I would if I knew that the S&P had downgraded the US credit rating. Which model you choose comes from an understanding of the inputs of the model, the thinking behind the model, and the situations in which the model is suitable. There's no shortcut here. In any sufficiently complex field, people without any understanding of the field don't even know what they don't know, and therefore can't form valid opinions on the field. Intelligent people whose self-esteem is partially based on their intelligence are particularly susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't fall prey to that. Recognize when you don't know something, and admit it.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago

I don't agree. If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatologist is in no position to coerce the weather to adhere to what his models says will happen. An economist is in a position to influence the economy. And economists as a group are in a position to steer the economy in the direction of whatever their model predicts. Any predictions they make are less predictions and much closer to being promises.

copsarebastards 11y ago
> If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatologist is in no position to coerce the weather to adhere to what his models says will happen. > And economists as a group are in a position to steer the economy in the direction of whatever their model predicts. > Any predictions they make are less predictions and much closer to being promises. Economists are in a position to coerce the economy in a direction, but I don't think that economists are in a position to coerce the economy to fit a model unless they have an accurate model (which may or may not be the same model as the first model) of the economy already. For example, I might predict that putting a 100% tax on oil will cause the stock market to rise. But that model is just wrong. I might be able to put a 100% tax on oil and then coerce the stock market to rise despite doing that, but to do that I would have to have an accurate model of the economy. An accurate model allows you to coerce the economy intentionally--without an accurate model you can take actions that will affect the economy, but you can't predict what effects your actions will have. You can't steer the economy if you don't have an accurate model of it. EDIT: There is significant incentive for economists to lie; that is, economists might publicly espouse a model they don't believe in order to steer the economy based on a model they do believe. There is also some evidence that some economists do this. However, this should not be mistaken for a proof that non-economists are better qualified to talk about the economy than economists. Ignorance is no more truthful than dishonesty.
- irixusr 11y ago
  I don't think he meant that they can steer the economy towards validating their model. Rather that the conclusion (right or wrong that they maybe) leads to certain actions by our leaders.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    I can only respond to what he said, not what he meant.
    - 11y ago

irixusr 11y ago

Oh, and it's not terrible to ignore people a priori? /sarcasm I'm not arguing for uninformed debate, but rather that economics as a field has huge social and moral implications. Some of these are more important than maximizing the unknowable variable of an unknown function. For example, let's say that demolishing a minority neighborhood in LA to make way for a private highway will maximize utility for all of LA. So what? Is it moral? About proposing a predictive model. I don't have to to point out flaws (not sure that I did). If A is false, I don't need to prove B to prove ~A. I concede that that it strengthen an argument. That being said, I hate to go all tin-hatter on you, but some would argue that "Peter Schieff was right" ;) He wasn't the only one, surely. But man, did he make bank!

copsarebastards 11y ago
> Some of these are more important than maximizing the unknowable variable of an unknown function. So, maybe don't talk about maximizing unknowable variables in unknown functions. We can talk about utility functions in the abstract in a theoretical context, but once you're trying to make actual assertions, economic models aren't dealing with unknown functions, they're dealing with very specific utility functions that maximize for very specific values. When an economist talks to the public, they necessarily speak in simplified terms. But the dumbed-down version of economics that you see on TV shouldn't be mistaken for what an economist actually does. Your argument is basically "I've never seen a Bloomberg Terminal, therefore economists must just be theorizing in a void." That's not the case. > For example, let's say that demolishing a minority neighborhood in LA to make way for a private highway will maximize utility for all of LA. So what? Is it moral? If your criticism of economics is that it maximizes unknowables, maybe don't pick ethics as your example of something better? The thing is, to answer the question "Is it moral?" you can pick a lot of economic functions to look at. How will the highway effect the income of the people in the minority neighborhood? That's fundamentally an economic question. > About proposing a predictive model. I don't have to to point out flaws (not sure that I did). If A is false, I don't need to prove B to prove ~A. Predictive models are all false. The question is not whether they're false, it's what the margin of error is in relation to reality. A false predictive model with a low margin of error is useful--complete ignorance is not useful.

snowwrestler 11y ago

Excluding people from a conversation based on their education/skill makes sense in some contexts. I only want trained engineers to design and evaluate a bridge I'm going to be driving on, for instance. In others contexts, we avoid it. Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience. And of course, anyone can run for office, vote in an election, or lobby their elected officials, regardless of education or training. Where does economics fall on this spectrum? That's a pretty tough question, actually. It's a highly technical field, but the systems it measures and predicts are broadly inclusive of everyone. Is it engineering or policy? Somewhere in between. So while I appreciate how annoying it must be to trained economists to hear lay folk expound on auditing the Fed or whatever, I think the culture of the U.S. is that citizens get a say in the policy that affects them. And a lot of conversation about economics are actually about economic policy decisions.

copsarebastards 11y ago
> Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience. Yes, they aren't educated in law, but the intent of the system is that the judicial system informs the jurors adequately for them to form opinions. I'm not trying to exclude people based on whether they have a degree. > And of course, anyone can run for office, vote in an election, or lobby their elected officials, regardless of education or training. But the intent of the system is that we elect people who are informed enough to make good decisions for us. > Where does economics fall on this spectrum? There is no spectrum, you've simply conflated formal education with being informed.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  But even if someone is uninformed, or grossly misinformed, they can still run for office, vote, talk to their members of Congress, or serve on a jury. There is no "how informed are you" test at all for those things, beyond the vague free-flowing conversation between citizens. When it comes to who should make government policy, fundamentally the questions is not "how informed is enough," the question is "who gets to decide how informed is enough." Or roughly "who watches the watchers."