tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1753323490201576752..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: A Veritable Epidemic of MathinessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-58759226966115068872015-05-20T14:40:40.153-04:002015-05-20T14:40:40.153-04:00The book mentioned on the average production funct...The book mentioned on the average production function is freely downloadable from http://jesusfelipe.com/cat1gaddeswaruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509075029154476375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-89981548432755460432015-05-20T09:28:18.107-04:002015-05-20T09:28:18.107-04:00I should have started with this one. It's as c...I should have started with this one. It's as conclusive as an inductive argument can get:<br /><br />As a thought experiment, imagine an academic discipline where every practitioner shares the same basic error of reasoning. Now imagine that the critics of that discipline correctly point out all the bad results generated by the practioners, but fail to notice that they also endorse the faulty reasoning that drives all the errors. What would the discourse in that discipline look like? <br /><br />Now open your eyes. Recognize anything?Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14053829964678536392015-05-20T08:41:25.746-04:002015-05-20T08:41:25.746-04:00reason talks about spending being equivalent to in...reason talks about spending being equivalent to income. This is self evident, and therefore suspect. (In economics, everything that is self evident is suspect.)<br /><br />Oh, most spending is equivalent to *someone's* income, but increasingly, collective spending in its myriad small increments is funnelled to a handful of capacious pockets. So, although gallons of water are being carried to the garden, they're not being sprinkled on the marigolds, they're being dumped in the pool.<br /><br />You end up with two economies side by side, one an Olympic pool of liquidity, the other a desert.<br /><br />Hey, no math in this metaphor! Therefore it must be true! /sarcastic whimsy<br /><br />NoniNoni Mausahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11198589990083966806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-78030783030195626302015-05-20T08:02:26.910-04:002015-05-20T08:02:26.910-04:00To be fair, in 100 years there has been one victor...To be fair, in 100 years there has been one victory. Game theory has helped the distribution of organs for transplant. People like to point to that. Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-82726494816804451572015-05-20T07:54:09.114-04:002015-05-20T07:54:09.114-04:00Reason: "Don't you mean some particular e...Reason: "Don't you mean some particular economics school of thought or methodology here?"<br /><br />This is one of the rote responses that enables the persistence of economics. It is powerful because it seems so completely reasonable. <br /><br />But compare the following claim, "You criticize the entire GOP, but surely it is only a small minority that rejects reality, and extreme liberals are equally bad."<br /><br />Or consider this: devastating critiques of this or that subset of economics have been advanced for at least a century. The result? Behavioral economics has been co-opted to produce Neoclassical results and other would be critics have become New Keynesians, satisfied with modifying axioms when they clearly know that they should be rejecting the axiomatic method. That is to say, 100 years and zero improvement. <br /><br />Or this. Brad DeLong's intro lecture features an apple cart selling apples. Supply equals demand and the market clears. But behind every grocery store in America, every single one, is a dumpster that reeks of rotting fruit. Is there some part of economics not repudiated by this simple contradiction?Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-31052620981170994912015-05-20T04:07:56.212-04:002015-05-20T04:07:56.212-04:00Thornton Hall,
I think you must have left a word o...Thornton Hall,<br />I think you must have left a word out somewhere - economics is a field of study. You want to stop human curiosity? Don't you mean some particular economic school of thought or methodology here? Precision please.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-3333144689587316852015-05-20T04:05:41.126-04:002015-05-20T04:05:41.126-04:00I must say, I am a bit confused here:
"The di...I must say, I am a bit confused here:<br />"The difference is that causal processes apply to the first but not the second, "<br />is this true. For instance the identity that spending equals income, has a direct causal process - money changes hands. (i.e. A decrease in consumption implies ceteris paribus a fall in total income). Whereas the causal process in clearing markets (failure to sell results in the decision of producers to either reduce quantity produced or reduce prices) is just less direct.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-72801718065556384272015-05-19T19:27:16.376-04:002015-05-19T19:27:16.376-04:00Wallfly, no -- these are different points. (1) Th...Wallfly, no -- these are different points. (1) The issue is not about confounders and whether statistical control takes care of them. (2) It *is* about the difference between rejecting a null (all theories suggesting a relationship between x and y are still on the table) and adducing evidence for one particular theory.Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-86401503117448628872015-05-19T19:07:45.364-04:002015-05-19T19:07:45.364-04:00PD, It seems your "abuse of hyp. testing"...PD, It seems your "abuse of hyp. testing" is related (if not synonymous) with the abuse of observational data where it is treated as dispositive when in fact it is not in general, and rather experimental data is. (Though I know it near impossible to run experiments in various areas of econ - e.g. macro). Am I missing something?Wallflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852136998154262919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-40398995869603590282015-05-19T15:58:08.528-04:002015-05-19T15:58:08.528-04:00The thing that needs explaining is the persistence...The thing that needs explaining is the persistence of economics. Understanding how critiques like Romer's strengthen rather than weaken the edifice is one of the steps needed before the dismantling can begin.<br /><br />Also, there needs to be an alternate way into the discourse. Under the current selection method, the solution to the persistence of economics problem requires someone to say: "I have a certain set of skills. I base my self esteem on those skills. But those skills are worse than useless in the field of economics. Doing what I do best is making the world a worse place."Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.com