On March 10 2012 00:25 Signet wrote: Much as I love economics, many economists can be partisan hacks. Especially the ones who are involved in political advocacy.
NY Times had an op-Ed about why we don't elect more scientists. One of the points was that someone who looks at data and uses that to come to a conclusion is going to be at a disadvantage campaigning against somebody who comes to a conclusion and then comes up with arguments (which may not even fit the facts) to justify it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/
Right now, economists aren't really at either end of that spectrum. This is largely the fault of economies themselves being incredibly complex things to model without enough data to do that very well yet.
Well there is actually plenty of data that economists can use (and do use) all the time. The issue is that since economists use different models that use different pieces of data, they often arrive at completely different results. Anyone claiming that their solution will 100% solve economic troubles is completely deluded.
On March 10 2012 00:25 Signet wrote: Much as I love economics, many economists can be partisan hacks. Especially the ones who are involved in political advocacy.
NY Times had an op-Ed about why we don't elect more scientists. One of the points was that someone who looks at data and uses that to come to a conclusion is going to be at a disadvantage campaigning against somebody who comes to a conclusion and then comes up with arguments (which may not even fit the facts) to justify it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/
Right now, economists aren't really at either end of that spectrum. This is largely the fault of economies themselves being incredibly complex things to model without enough data to do that very well yet.
Well, it's difficult to sell to people what someone in micro does, and macro is like entrails readings and polygraph tests.
The position is much more complicated than looking at data and determining a correct answer, because almost every option carries a tremendous sacrifice of some sort, the data/evidence can be questionable and the answers vary depending on time frame. Attempting to objectively assign values to things can often be a waste of time and still inherently biased. On top of that, head of state is often more of a leadership position than a managerial one, which is why someone who can craft a compelling argument is both advantaged and desirable.
I absolutely agree with the premise that there should be more engineers, scientists and mathematicians in Congress (although the lack of women might be an even more pressing issue) because their roles are defined much more like a management position and they spend a lot more time on specific aspects of specific issues where numbers need to be interpreted, but I don't think it's a critical quality for the Presidency, or that we'd be better served with a "data analyzer" as Commander in Chief.
If there were a single agreeable viewpoint for every issue labeled 'SCIENCE', that'd be one thing. Unfortunately, as is more often the case, there's a dozen competing sides, half of which come from science, who are all making best estimations, and the inevitable pick of one will detract from the others.
So Obama wants to reinstate racial slavery? Or is this the decrying class-warfare card being played with the most sensational, below-the-belt, off-the-wall analogy she could come up with? I mean, what the hell is she even talking about? This woman is great for Democrats. So glad HBO is making a movie about her -- Julianne Moore's impersonation seems spot-on.
On March 10 2012 00:25 Signet wrote: Much as I love economics, many economists can be partisan hacks. Especially the ones who are involved in political advocacy.
NY Times had an op-Ed about why we don't elect more scientists. One of the points was that someone who looks at data and uses that to come to a conclusion is going to be at a disadvantage campaigning against somebody who comes to a conclusion and then comes up with arguments (which may not even fit the facts) to justify it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/
Right now, economists aren't really at either end of that spectrum. This is largely the fault of economies themselves being incredibly complex things to model without enough data to do that very well yet.
Well there is actually plenty of data that economists can use (and do use) all the time. The issue is that since economists use different models that use different pieces of data, they often arrive at completely different results. Anyone claiming that their solution will 100% solve economic troubles is completely deluded.
Most of economics is based around really bad assumptions and generalizations. Austrian economics attempts to reduce the number of assumptions down to first principles - that humans act. In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act. Working from there, the Austrian school determines what actions people perform, taking into account things such as limited information, personal subjective preferences, etc.
Austrian economics is a step forward in economics over statistical models because it explicitly details what can and cannot be determined from looking at data. People are still free to use statistical models for estimation, but they are in no way conclusive or binding.
That's why you see the massive disparity between micro and macro economics. Micro, across all schools, generally follows a more Austrian method. Macro attempts to refute the Austrian method in the name of "complexity." It's the only "science" to shun fundamentals in the name of "complexity" and pass it off as legitimate. You don't see physicists claim that galaxies do not follow the laws of gravity because there are too many stars. Fundamentals must ALWAYS hold.
Also not clear what she pointing at. Maybe the way obama trys to help different minoritys overcome their suposed lower changes to be succesfull, wich she clearly opposes? Not sure what the question was wich led to this response. Still love sarah lol,would love to see her more.
On March 10 2012 06:12 EternaLLegacy wrote: Most of economics is based around really bad assumptions and generalizations. Austrian economics attempts to reduce the number of assumptions down to first principles - that humans act. In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act. Working from there, the Austrian school determines what actions people perform, taking into account things such as limited information, personal subjective preferences, etc.
Austrian economics is a step forward in economics over statistical models because it explicitly details what can and cannot be determined from looking at data. People are still free to use statistical models for estimation, but they are in no way conclusive or binding.
That's why you see the massive disparity between micro and macro economics. Micro, across all schools, generally follows a more Austrian method. Macro attempts to refute the Austrian method in the name of "complexity." It's the only "science" to shun fundamentals in the name of "complexity" and pass it off as legitimate. You don't see physicists claim that galaxies do not follow the laws of gravity because there are too many stars. Fundamentals must ALWAYS hold.
"In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act."
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "act"? Do you mean 'have free will'? 'Act rationally'? 'Act according to the laws of physics'?
I'll buy that people "act" at least to the same extent that other animals "act" if not moreso. However I don't accept that people act rationally nor even always with our "rational" part of the brain.
The issue with turning microeconomic principles into macroeconomic models is that 1) that's a lot of individual actors to model 2) everybody's actions influence everybody else's actions, so you've got a huge dynamic system that you have to simplify somehow (statistical modeling) or you can't solve it in any kind of useful timeframe.
Think about your own stars/galaxies analogy. Trying to model the interaction between a million stars as separate entities would be computationally difficult (impossible?). It's like the 3 body problem, only factorially worse.
In fact even talking about stars isn't really accurate. Stars themselves are composed of an incredible number of subatomic particles all interacting with eachother. To really get a microfounded physics model, you'd have to have each smsllest particle be its own object in the model. But there isn't enough computational power in the world to model this in real time, even if you knew the laws of physics perfectly.
On March 10 2012 00:25 Signet wrote: Much as I love economics, many economists can be partisan hacks. Especially the ones who are involved in political advocacy.
NY Times had an op-Ed about why we don't elect more scientists. One of the points was that someone who looks at data and uses that to come to a conclusion is going to be at a disadvantage campaigning against somebody who comes to a conclusion and then comes up with arguments (which may not even fit the facts) to justify it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/
Right now, economists aren't really at either end of that spectrum. This is largely the fault of economies themselves being incredibly complex things to model without enough data to do that very well yet.
Well there is actually plenty of data that economists can use (and do use) all the time. The issue is that since economists use different models that use different pieces of data, they often arrive at completely different results. Anyone claiming that their solution will 100% solve economic troubles is completely deluded.
Most of economics is based around really bad assumptions and generalizations. Austrian economics attempts to reduce the number of assumptions down to first principles - that humans act. In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act. Working from there, the Austrian school determines what actions people perform, taking into account things such as limited information, personal subjective preferences, etc.
Austrian economics is a step forward in economics over statistical models because it explicitly details what can and cannot be determined from looking at data. People are still free to use statistical models for estimation, but they are in no way conclusive or binding.
That's why you see the massive disparity between micro and macro economics. Micro, across all schools, generally follows a more Austrian method. Macro attempts to refute the Austrian method in the name of "complexity." It's the only "science" to shun fundamentals in the name of "complexity" and pass it off as legitimate. You don't see physicists claim that galaxies do not follow the laws of gravity because there are too many stars. Fundamentals must ALWAYS hold.
No offense, but stuff like this is very painful to read when you have actually studied economics and methodological individualism. Out of curiosity, have you extensively studied economics at a university-level?
On March 10 2012 00:25 Signet wrote: Much as I love economics, many economists can be partisan hacks. Especially the ones who are involved in political advocacy.
NY Times had an op-Ed about why we don't elect more scientists. One of the points was that someone who looks at data and uses that to come to a conclusion is going to be at a disadvantage campaigning against somebody who comes to a conclusion and then comes up with arguments (which may not even fit the facts) to justify it. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/
Right now, economists aren't really at either end of that spectrum. This is largely the fault of economies themselves being incredibly complex things to model without enough data to do that very well yet.
Well there is actually plenty of data that economists can use (and do use) all the time. The issue is that since economists use different models that use different pieces of data, they often arrive at completely different results. Anyone claiming that their solution will 100% solve economic troubles is completely deluded.
Most of economics is based around really bad assumptions and generalizations. Austrian economics attempts to reduce the number of assumptions down to first principles - that humans act. In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act. Working from there, the Austrian school determines what actions people perform, taking into account things such as limited information, personal subjective preferences, etc.
Austrian economics is a step forward in economics over statistical models because it explicitly details what can and cannot be determined from looking at data. People are still free to use statistical models for estimation, but they are in no way conclusive or binding.
That's why you see the massive disparity between micro and macro economics. Micro, across all schools, generally follows a more Austrian method. Macro attempts to refute the Austrian method in the name of "complexity." It's the only "science" to shun fundamentals in the name of "complexity" and pass it off as legitimate. You don't see physicists claim that galaxies do not follow the laws of gravity because there are too many stars. Fundamentals must ALWAYS hold.
No offense, but stuff like this is very painful to read when you have actually studied economics and methodological individualism. Out of curiosity, have you extensively studied economics at a university-level?
If university level, you mean sit through keynesian indoctrination sessions, no. If you mean do I have more knowledge of economics than reading an intro micro book, then yes. I've read a LOT of economics outside a classroom.
Man, State, and Economy by Murray Rothbard Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises Socialism by Hayek Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy
and many, many more.
I'm also somewhat familiar with Austro-Virginian economics, but my formal reading on the material is cursory.
My experiences with macroeconomics as its taught in universities is by reading through textbooks of fellow students who've taken those courses. I can say without a doubt that they are an embarrassment and do not base the models and equations on axiomatic principles.
On March 10 2012 06:12 EternaLLegacy wrote: Most of economics is based around really bad assumptions and generalizations. Austrian economics attempts to reduce the number of assumptions down to first principles - that humans act. In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act. Working from there, the Austrian school determines what actions people perform, taking into account things such as limited information, personal subjective preferences, etc.
Austrian economics is a step forward in economics over statistical models because it explicitly details what can and cannot be determined from looking at data. People are still free to use statistical models for estimation, but they are in no way conclusive or binding.
That's why you see the massive disparity between micro and macro economics. Micro, across all schools, generally follows a more Austrian method. Macro attempts to refute the Austrian method in the name of "complexity." It's the only "science" to shun fundamentals in the name of "complexity" and pass it off as legitimate. You don't see physicists claim that galaxies do not follow the laws of gravity because there are too many stars. Fundamentals must ALWAYS hold.
"In fact, it is impossible to disagree with such an assertion without also agreeing with it, since the act of disagreeing proves that you, as a human, act."
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "act"? Do you mean 'have free will'? 'Act rationally'? 'Act according to the laws of physics'?
I'll buy that people "act" at least to the same extent that other animals "act" if not moreso. However I don't accept that people act rationally nor even always with our "rational" part of the brain.
The issue with turning microeconomic principles into macroeconomic models is that 1) that's a lot of individual actors to model 2) everybody's actions influence everybody else's actions, so you've got a huge dynamic system that you have to simplify somehow (statistical modeling) or you can't solve it in any kind of useful timeframe.
Think about your own stars/galaxies analogy. Trying to model the interaction between a million stars as separate entities would be computationally difficult (impossible?). It's like the 3 body problem, only factorially worse.
In fact even talking about stars isn't really accurate. Stars themselves are composed of an incredible number of subatomic particles all interacting with eachother. To really get a microfounded physics model, you'd have to have each smsllest particle be its own object in the model. But there isn't enough computational power in the world to model this in real time, even if you knew the laws of physics perfectly.
Austrian economics does not assume rational actors. By act, I mean perform actions. However, I think a lot of people get confused when they hear rational used in economics.
People may not act rationally to an outsider who has more information, but generally speaking, people act rationally with the limited information. Assuming perfect information is a huge fallacy that Austrian economics does not fall into.
It is also important to note the law of realized preference, which states that only by looking at a person's actions can their subjective preferences (valuations) be determined. This is essential for understanding why people don't follow their announced preferences. Many people say one thing and do another.
And yes, you are correct that is not feasible to model large economies, or large systems of individual acting components of any kind. However, the models you use must not violate the basic fundamental principles. If they are applied to smaller, computable systems, they have to agree with fundamental principles. Many macroeconomic theories, especially Keynesian theories, do not make any sense when applied to small scale economies, which suggests that either there is a fundamental difference between small and large economies (unproven and untrue), or that the models are flawed and contradict basic microeconomic principles.
EPT
