If Economics Ever Wants To Be A Real Science ...

by: Natasha Chart

Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:30


... and if economists in general ever want the sort of respect accorded to scientists and medical doctors, then the discipline as a whole must stop auditioning for the role of Emperor's New Clothes.

The financial crisis has gotten me worried at times that I might be turning anti-intellectual. I hear people talk about complicated economic equations and leverage, and ... oh, you know, you've been reading the same things ... it just fills me with white hot wrath and furious anger.

But then I realize that it makes me angry because it reminds me of something that Richard Feynman, a celebrated physicist, said in one of his memoirs, and I realize that whatever ails me, anti-intellectualism isn't it.

Natasha Chart :: If Economics Ever Wants To Be A Real Science ...
So Feynman came to a realization one day when he was talking to a colleague. He asked him to explain some aspect of physics so his grandmother could understand, as Einstein himself said a physicist should be able to do. Not only was his colleague unable to do it in this case, neither could Feynman himself. He concluded that they didn't fully understand what they were talking about.

Feynman, again, was a physicist. I never made it all the way to physics, calculus was grueling enough at the time, but I have it on good authority that it's hard.

As this programmer, also inspired by that principle, said, when people can't explain themselves without speaking in jargon salad, they're either clueless themselves or are trying to baffle you with bull.

No Jargon

Thing is, the real estate market has been a lie for years and some thieving parasites (via) used that lie to defraud the home-buying public. Other thieving parasites decided to steal the profits from employee productivity increases, for about 40 years give or take, which was aided in the meantime by another set of thieving parasites who covered our missing income amidst rising prices with what turned out to be ruinously expensive individual lines of credit. Also, some of them made crazy *ss bets that all of the people they'd been stealing from would eventually get rich enough to pay off their gambling debts.

In shorter, they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. Now they're here for the rest.

In a just world, these people would end up eating institutional food for the rest of their lives and answering to a number. That won't happen because our government decided that policing the wealthy just wasn't their job, they were busy tasering teenagers and blowing up foreigners who never did a goddam thing to any of us. So in this world, the thieves are instead being offered extremely cushy jobs, because politicians believe it when they claim that no one could do the work they do for some pathetic salary like $500,000 a year.

Which is ridiculous, because hedge fund management isn't rocket science and rocket scientists don't make that much.

Is there some equation that washes clean those uncomfortable, dejargonated results? No. And everybody knows it.

Economists of the publicly respectable variety claim that they have the magic formula to the most prosperity ever. Their bluff has been called.

Being Right

In the sciences, people do disagree. Sometimes very heatedly and for many years. But they also look at evidence, especially the predictive kind, and the person who finally gets to say 'I told you so' wins. (Science is about being right, after all, not winning friends and influencing people.)

Given a theory that has any hope of being proven, you're supposed to be able to make accurate, testable predictions about relevant chains of cause and effect.

My favorite example of this is that Darwin used the principles of his evolutionary theory to predict that a flower he saw that had a slender, several inch-long nectar cup must have evolved in parallel with an insect that had a several inch-long proboscis to match. He never saw that insect in his lifetime, but many, many years later, it was discovered just as Darwin predicted it would be.

In economics, the people who were right, whose theories about economic cause and effect most closely matched real world outcomes, are let nowhere near the economic policy-making apparatus. (via)

The people who said deregulating everything and letting white collar criminals do whatever the hell they wanted, except for Martha Stewart, would put a pony in every yard, were wrong. Dead wrong. Very wrong. Obscenely wrong. So wrong it isn't funny. So wrong you have to laugh. WTF are we doing still listening to them when they haven't changed what they're saying?

So if there is a real science buried somewhere in economics, the people who've been right need to be put in charge of it. No more PR hackery wrapped in equation paper.

Value

I've been planning to write something more thoughtful on this topic, economic valuation, for a while now. But I think I have something better.

I just found out this last weekend that I have a retired relative who spends almost her entire Social Security check on a $400/month Medicare supplemental. She was a housewife, she has a pre-existing heart condition, and her Social Security check is practically nothing. One of her kids sold their house to move in with her, to keep their mom from losing her house and having to move away from the family.

That's not all. One couple I know, she lost her job in the recent non-profit employment bloodbath, he just got told he has to take a pay cut along with the rest of his coworkers. I know several people who were out of work for months last year, at least one who's been out of work for over a year now, others who've had to take jobs with much lower pay and benefits than they had only a couple years ago.

The value placed by the government on helping them, and everyone like them all over the country, is not nearly as high as helping the people who stole from all of us. Some pet 'economists' seem to think the American public is a bad investment; unlike the doglickers at AIG. Which isn't only unjust, it makes no sense.

Who's going to make good all the bets that the banksters placed on the public's future ability to pay off debt if none of us have any *ing money?

See? No sense. Can't go very far in science with logic that sloppy.  


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Anti-hucksterism is not (4.00 / 2)
anti-intellectualism.

Economists are generally nothing more than courtiers, they make their living by telling the powerful what they want to hear.

Montani semper liberi


Nothing sloppy here! (4.00 / 3)
Brilliant! The best piece I have read on financial boogey men all week. I am spreading this around.

Nicely done, breath of fresh air, chopped cleanly and all that. Hip hip, hooray!  


You state the problem youself.--it isn't all or most economists (4.00 / 5)
It's that being right gets you the privilege of laboring in relative obscurity, whereas being dead wrong gets you on TV.

It has a parallel in the sciences, were a climate scientist who denies global warming is, what, 100 times more likely to get a TV appearance or a guest Op-Ed column?  

Another thing which economics and climate science have in common is that they study extremely complex, interconnected systems.  So things can only be estimated or "proven" with statistics-based confidence intervals and the like.  It's not as simple as (Galileo?) dropping two rocks of different sizes to see if they fall at the same speed or not.


Great piece overall, btw. (4.00 / 2)
I'm a professor of economics, and have been emphatically telling everyone that we're being robbed since the first bailout last fall.

[ Parent ]
You're spot on (0.00 / 0)
But those denialists are never put in charge of the scientific establishment, I think it's more self-policing in that way. That they can get news coverage is a failure of other institutions.

On the other hand, it is somewhat a failure of science to have been insular, expect the truth to speak for itself (the science equivalent delusion of 'build it and they will come'), and perhaps, spend insufficient time trying to win friends and influence people outside their disciplines.

Real science needs better PR is I guess where I'm going with this.

There are a lot of people who see this and are trying, I don't mean to ignore that. Though it goes against the established grain and is a bit like the struggle progressives face in trying to learn how to combat very polished spin machines.


[ Parent ]
Rant (4.00 / 5)
I've been ranting about this for a number of years as have others. One of the best places to see the great unwashed take down the economic pundits is on Mark Thoma's blog:

http://economistsview.typepad....

The commentators will have none of the conventional platitudes seen in the writings of others he posts. Even he, a traditional (but liberal) economist has started to write more critically about some of his colleagues.

One of my points is that we only hear about economics based upon capitalism. Even those most critical of what has happened during the past 40 years with Reaganism are still working to get the capitalist engine back on track as quickly as possible. There is no discussion of alternative economic systems or even speculation as to what might be devised.

My main point is that capitalism is based upon the assumption that natural resources are essentially unlimited and relatively cheap. Thus inefficiencies like the huge numbers of enterprises that fail and waste their investment aren't factored in as a cost to society. Neither is the cost of pollution and the degradation of the planet. Non-renewable raw materials are priced at the cost of extraction, there is no accounting for the fact that they can never be replaced. Both these are what economists call "externalities" and are hardly discussed by most capitalist economists.

Finally capitalism is based upon the idea of continual growth. Firms obtain capital based upon the idea that they will return the principal with interest. In fact over the past 40 or 50 years the idea of a stable return has been replaced by the demand for an ever increasing rate of return and this has led to the asset bubbles and the high degree of fraud that is needed to make the impossible seem possible.

The alternative is a steady-state economic system, but this would eliminate the "magic" of compound interest and much financial speculation. Economists and those who play them in the media are paid by business interests and saying the kinds of things I'm suggesting would find them out of work rapidly.

If I may be permitted a bit of self promotion, I have a series of short essays on all of this on my web site:

http://robertdfeinman.com/society  

Policies not Politics


Right (4.00 / 3)
One of my points is that we only hear about economics based upon capitalism....

My main point is that capitalism is based upon the assumption that natural resources are essentially unlimited and relatively cheap. Thus inefficiencies like the huge numbers of enterprises that fail and waste their investment aren't factored in as a cost to society. Neither is the cost of pollution and the degradation of the planet. Non-renewable raw materials are priced at the cost of extraction, there is no accounting for the fact that they can never be replaced. Both these are what economists call "externalities" and are hardly discussed by most capitalist economists.

We basically have an economic theory of how a certain set of social relations work.  And a not-very-critical theory at that.  It's as if "physics" referred only to solid state physics, with no theory at all applying to liquid, gas, plasma, etc., much less an underlying theory of the fundamental structure of matter.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
and other economic systems, (0.00 / 0)
such as communism, dont address these issues either.  we have moved passed the point in where we can go back to the past and find anything applicable for today.  not that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that history lessons are without merit; but rather we have entered a point where the context has changed and is changing so rapidly that the only thing we can do is create new systems,  we have no other choice.  of course this is not a new situation either, and has happened historically, but the difference now is the degree to which new ideas are necessary.

[ Parent ]
That was one of Tanta's shining attributes (0.00 / 0)
She would explain things in excruciating detail, but with clarity and wit. Thereby the world's stock of understanding was increased.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

Printing this out as I write... (4.00 / 2)
so I can take it to school with me this morning.  Great, essential piece.

Seen this whole thing before...fifteen years ago with energy dereg. in CA.  Many of those who predicted from the beginning the train wreck that would occur after handing much of our electricity system to the privateers (criminal-minded privateers, no less) were ignored, discredited or just patted on their cute little heads by the oh so serious types who helped drive the state into ruin.  Folks ended up retiring, finding refuge in academia or fleeing altogether for entirely different lives.  They were 100% correct and as a result they were largely driven out of the policy arena.


"the record of failure to predict recessions is virtually unblemished" (4.00 / 1)
Surveying leading financial and economic analysts monthly, the influential Consensus Forecasts publishes macroeconomic forecasts of annual real GDP growth for both industrialized and developing nations.

Using the mean of the distribution of forecasts for both future and current years for 63 nations over the years 1989-1998, IMF economist Prakash Loungani asked 'how well do forecasters predict recessions?' and finds:

The simple answer is: 'Not very well'.  Only two of the 60 recessions that occurred over the sample were predicted a year in advance, two thirds remained undetected by the April of the year in which the recession occurred, and in about a quarter of the cases the forecast in October was still for positive growth (albeit small). In 80% of the cases, the forecast made in October of the year of the recession underestimated its extent.

Prakash Loungani, "How accurate are private sector forecasts? Cross-country evidence from consensus forecasts of output growth", International Journal of Forecasting 17(3) (2001):419-432, 430.

The analysts failed to predict a recession the following year 96.7% of the time, or as the author observes: "the record of failure to predict recessions is virtually unblemished."

Certainly it is true that predicting GDP is a very complex challenge and not all analysts are surveyed by Consensus Forecasts, but the sample surely represents a significant portion of the leading lights among such figures.

The author offers as possible explanations for this record of failure a lack of information or the absence of incentives to predict recessions.  Whatever the explanation, this record of abject failure hardly inspires confidence in these leading forecasters.

If you failed nearly 97% of the time on one of your core duties, how long would you retain your position? How much respect and confidence would you earn from other employees in your organization?


Pretty Interesting, But (0.00 / 0)
It's a bit hard to tease out just what this really shows.  Two different issues immediately surface for me:

(1) How well do they predict in general?  Not just recessions, but how accurate are their predictions of GDP one year out in all situations?  Do they, for example, just tend to be too optimistic, so that if one cut their predictions by 0.5% across the board, they'd be significantly more accurate?

(2) Are there some people who are really accurate, but the field in general fails to learn from them?  (Whatever happened to the "magic of the marketplace"?)

Of course, even if they could make accurate predictions, I'm not really sure what that would prove, either.

An engineer who could accurately predict when bridges would fail, but couldn't build better bridges would not impress me all that much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Division of labor (4.00 / 1)
Just because the same engineer that can accurately predict when a bridge will fail, may not have the time or incentive to translate that knowledge into better bridge design, does not mean that the other engineers that read and appreciate their work won't do it.

Even experts and nobel prize winners can't do everything.

The value is in the information that is produced and exchanged, not only the number of bridges built.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
What does it show? (4.00 / 1)
(1) How well do they predict in general?  Not just recessions, but how accurate are their predictions of GDP one year out in all situations?  Do they, for example, just tend to be too optimistic, so that if one cut their predictions by 0.5% across the board, they'd be significantly more accurate?

The findings about forecasting performance during recessions raise the question of whether the pattern displayed in Fig. 1 would disappear if recession years were deleted from the sample. However, this is not the case. The gain in accuracy from deleting the recession years is noticeable but not overwhelming. In particular, as shown in Fig. 2, the Theil statistic for the variables and current-year forecasts is quite similar for the full sample and the non-recession years.

Loungani (2001):423 & 425

And, yes, they tend to be too optimistic, as in the delay in observing a recession underway and in underestimating its severity.  The author does not explore whether a systematic adjustment would improve accuracy.

(2) Are there some people who are really accurate, but the field in general fails to learn from them?  (Whatever happened to the "magic of the marketplace"?)

This study only assessed predictions reported in Consensus Forecasts and it did not assess the accuracy of individual forecasts, either of those whose forecasts were aggregated in Consensus Forecasts or of those not surveyed.  Aggregation bias is a potential threat to these findings and one acknowledged by the author.

If these predictions were accurate a year out it seems to me that it would afford the opportunity to take preventative action, both because the recession would not yet be under way and that higher confidence in predictions might catalyze political support for interventions.

I agree the most important question is 'can you build a better bridge?', but surely understanding how and why bridges collapse is a necessary condition for understanding how to build them better, even if it is no guarantee that one will, in fact, build a better bridge.


[ Parent ]
Just an insurance company (4.00 / 1)
When AIG was just an insurance company, nobody cared.  Then one of their divisions borrowed some of the worst aspects of Enron and slapped it into the form of an insurance.  The public has so far shelled out $160 billion to directly cover the costs of these 400 ghouls and the numbers are rising.  Fast.

Telling people what they want to hear can be a lucrative business.  Telling people the truth should be lucrative (look at all the mess it saves) but it is not.  That was true in the times of Homer (see Cassandra and Troy) and true today (see Paul Krugman).

The Fed is pushing and subsidizing bigger banks and conglomerates that will just tie us into even bigger fasilures down the road.  I'm tempted to say something snarky like how many box tops did they send in for their PhDs.  Much of the problem is not the degree but the individual.  Rewards follow lies so the greedy learn to lie and lie often.


Thank You (0.00 / 0)
As Einstein once said, if you can't explain it to a seven year old, you don't understand it.

Put another way, simplifying is not the same thing as simplistic thinking.  To simplify is to get at the heart of the matter and truly understand the basics of what is going on.  Simplistic thinking, on the other hand, leads one to believe complexity doesn't exist; it will get you into trouble every time.  It is hard to tell the difference sometimes.

But not simplifying will get you into just as much trouble, where you miss the proverbial forest for the trees.  Or worse yet, let yourself believe default credit swaps actually generate real wealth.

You did a great job of simplifying and getting to the heart of our problem.  Great job.


i think this post is great (0.00 / 0)
and it seems to me that many with professions with specialized learning are basically founded on the fact they are have their own special lexicon.  a vocabulary just for that profession that necessarily excludes outsiders.  it doesnt even seem as if it is at all times warranted, but the insider words are used anyway.  of course in medicine or biology its difficult to argue this point.  there is a definite use for the words.  but even then, doctors use their vocabulary to exclude laymen and conjure a sort of mystical glow over their profession which can intimidate many people.

those in finance and politics seem to love this sort of semantic elitism as well.  when you crack the code and figure out what is going on it all seems rather mundane.  if i ever had some sort of reverence for the medical or legal professions it is gone now that ive begun to understand their words.  


And biologists ... (4.00 / 1)
There's a lot of special vocabulary that's vital to biology, because things like mitochondria really need their very own word so that complex conversations can be had about them.

But if you can't explain to someone that a mitochondrion is like a cell's battery, or that a cell membrane's phospholipid bilayer is very much like an ordinary soap bubble ... then all you did was memorize a bunch of words and you don't know what you're talking about. And if you look down on people in general for not automatically knowing what you mean when you slip into your discipline's specialized geek speak, or make people feel bad for asking you to explain yourself, then you're just a prat.


[ Parent ]
"So if there is a real science buried somewhere in economics" (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to know about it too, because like you, I really have my doubts. Take the very basis of what science starts out with -- observed phenomenon occurring in the natural world -- and compare it to the basis of what economics starts out with -- which is observed phenomenon of a wholly human enterprise -- and you immediately have to wonder why economics isn't merely a subset of history or even psychology. Even what economics calls "laws" are not really even laws at all but conditions that change over time.  

I'd vote psychology (0.00 / 0)
Possibly with a side of marketing.

[ Parent ]
It's a social science (0.00 / 0)
Along with psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and political science.  Obviously it's similar to all of them in that it's studying people.

I don't know very much about economics, so I don't claim to be any sort of expert.  However, it seems to me that what most people are complaining about isn't problems with the study of economics itself, but the economists who are doing the studying.

Economics isn't really supposed to give policy prescriptions at all.  It's supposed to be a framework for looking at the world that tells you what the likely consequences of certain economic policies is supposed to be.  The reason you have so many publicly known economists giving policy advice left and right is because, well, you have to do that in order to become famous.  Everyone else gets to have fun in academia.

As someone mentioned before, this isn't a problem just with economics--you can see climate change science going through the same process.  The problem is more with who we choose to give attention to, and in our society (or, to be fair, in the vast majority of societies that have ever existed), it's to the person who makes us have to think less.  In this case, that would be the economist saying "We have to do X!" and not the one saying "Well, if we do X, this will happen, and if we do Y, that will happen, and they both have advantages and disadvantages..."  And, naturally, the economists who make policy advice beneficial to the rich will get more exposure, even if they're wrong.

Once again, the problem seems to be with the society's lack of political interest.


[ Parent ]
economics and climate change science "going through the same process" (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I agree with that and it seems to be a central point in your argument. It's true that the scientific opinions on climate change have been evolving and will continue to evolve overtime. And like Natasha said in her diary, scientists disagree all the time. But scientists disagree about their interpretations of cause and effect relationships that are based on observable facts. Economists disagree about their interpretations of cause and effect relationships that are often not based on any observable facts at all. It's often just interpretations on top of interpretations. Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for guys like Krugman, Stiglitz, and others. But I'm not sure even these guys can provide "a framework for looking at the world that tells you what the likely consequences of certain economic policies is supposed to be."

[ Parent ]
You misunderstood (0.00 / 0)
For economics=climate change, I meant in terms of their media exposure--i.e., that scientists who disagree with global warming are given much more exposure than scientists who agree with it.  Of course there's much more consensus on climate change than on, say, whether the stimulus package should have been passed (or if it was too big or too small).  

Do note, however, that there is consensus on topics like "Government spending and tax cuts help make the economy move faster" (i.e. that Keynes was right).  This is because there are observable economic facts: GDP and unenployment to name the obvious ones.  There's also average income, average wage, average price, and many others.  To be honest, I'm not really sure what facts you're talking about that aren't "observable"--as a social science, economics must inherently be less certain than natural sciences, but the facts remain facts.

Of course guys (or women for that matter) like Krugman and Stiglitz can't provide the framework themselves.  Their job is to use the framework that economics provides to determine facts about specific issues.  Again, these facts do not themselves determine a policy.  They might heavily imply a policy (e.g. price control is an inefficent way to achieve policy goals; if you want to help the poor, you should instead give them money directly), but economics itself does not suggest, one way or the other, what your goals should be.  That's up to you.


[ Parent ]
Glad you clarified (0.00 / 0)
the economics=climate change point. I think you and I mostly agree but I have a little less faith in the "facts" of macro-economics than you do. For instance, IMHO, GDP, unemployment, etc. aren't really "facts" but very rough measurements designed to prop up interpretative arguments. They often aren't even very good explanations for what they're supposed to be explaining.  

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search