Criticising broad economics for measuring and discussing issues on the basis that macro forecasts predictions are inaccurate is equivalent to criticising climate science because weather forecasting is inaccurate.
Note:
https://twitter.com/neurobonkers/status/422097747563409408/photo/1
I am trying to gradually clarify my perception of what economics is. Here are some cliff notes from a recent discussion I had:
Economists try to answer questions about “the allocation of resources given scarcity”. Every question is quite specific and different, economics education involves learning a broad set of skills that allow us to tackle questions. To do this economists use models. Models embody a set of assumptions, assumptions that create an “artificial world” that we can deduce conclusions from given these assumptions. We then use data, robustness testing, and rhetorical debate to help us inductively infer conclusions about the real world question we are asking from these artificial worlds.
As a result, economics is a discipline that can discuss a wide range of social questions that range from deterministic statements, to prediction, to description, to exploration – but the answers provided are always conditional on the question asked, and the assumptions we have made for answering that specific question.
Further details can be found in these (in order):
If you know of any literature I should peek at to help inform myself on the status of the accumulation of knowledge and method in the discipline (as there is A LOT of improvement I can do in my understanding here) I would really appreciate it.
Continuing his discussion of the tourism industry (here and here), Benje Patterson has decided to have a deeper look through the regional figures (Infometrics link). The analysis is built on the following graph:
What each quadrant means, and why territorial authorities are where they are, is discussed in the article.
I had trouble getting out of bed this morning, so to help get me going I decided to read an essay about economics. And I ran back into a treat of an essay I think we should all read. This is Modern Economics and its Critics, 1: by Partha Dasgupta.
His focus is explicitly on what economists actually “do”, noting that economists tend to focus on small questions we can actually go someway to answering – and that economists through economics, in no way, try to derive sweeping universal rules for society. Furthermore, the focus of economists, and the assumptions economists make, are a product of their times and the questions that “matter”.
My favourite quote though:
I said earlier that modern economics treats people with respect; it does not regard them as mere dupes and foils of Business and Government.
As you may or may not know, I am a vegetarian. As a result, occasionally I talk myself into needing more protein. To do this I eat cashews, which I think are actually just mainly fat, but are very yummy.
Anyways, I went along to the supermarket and purchased a small number of cashews. The checkout operator warned me “be careful, those are addictive”. I responded by saying “hey that is why I buy them is such small quantities”. We’ve talked about this idea in the past here and here.
Now what we really described there was a situation where the consumption of cashews is time inconsistent, and where I use a precommitment strategy of “buying less of them”.
This broad definition of addiction, which merely means that you are unable to commit to an optimal time path of consumption, is fine. But the cost of it is limited by the cost of precommiting.
I’m currently working part time and studying full time, which has significantly reduced the time I have to blog – even my normal plan of “writing the week ahead on Saturday morning” is starting to get stretched. So to ensure that something will be up, I’m throwing up aimless metaphors and quotes and leaving them open for discussion.
Note that I do not necessarily agree with the points I’m putting up – in fact, some of them are points I disagree with. The things I’ll raise will just be questions and statements I find interesting to consider!
This will be fun, I promise. If the discussions are wicked enough I can do posts on them as well – win-win. So let’s kick this off.
Economists provide the menu, it is up to society to choose from it, and accept the consequences of their choice.
