tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post4365215974308616601..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: Economics, physics, and data: a response to BlackfordJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-86051900379424056002016-11-06T08:50:20.010-08:002016-11-06T08:50:20.010-08:00It is exceedingly difficult for me to understand w...It is exceedingly difficult for me to understand why you insist on defending the use of Friedman's methodology in physics in criticizing my paper. My paper is about the misuse of Friedman’s methodology in economics, not in physics. <br /><br />Over the past fifty years mainstream economists have developed highly sophisticated mathematical models based on absurd assumptions that were justified in the name of Friedman's as if methodology. Those models were used as an intellectual justification for deregulating the financial system in a way that blew up the world's economy. This occurred in spite of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of years of historical data have shown that unregulated or poorly regulated financial institutions inevitably lead to financial crises that, in turn, cause economic, political, and social catastrophes. <br /><br />When I tried to discover why this happened I found that in spite of the overwhelming historical evidence that warned of the catastrophe that would result, virtually no mainstream economists spoke out against this deregulation as it took place, and those who tried were ridiculed and marginalized within the discipline of economics in much the same way you marginalize Minsky, Keynes, and what I have tried to do in Where Did All The Money Go?. I also discovered that the reason virtually no mainstream economists spoke out against this deregulation is that over the past fifty years free-market ideological beliefs have come to permeate the discipline of economics, facilitated by an egregious misuse of Friedman's as if methodology. <br /><br />When I write a paper attempting to explain this misuse within the discipline of economics you ridicule my attempt mercilessly in defense of its use in physics. At the same time, in one of the posts you link to you claim: <br /><br />"I am not defending the implications Friedman makes from this analogy about economics . . . . The problem is that this analogy doesn't defend against theories that fail to match the data which is a more serious issue in economics than a particular mathematical approach." <br /><br />You will just have to forgive me for finding this a bit confusing.<br /><br />When I present a reasoned analysis of the historical data and a detailed explanation as to why the inevitable result of deregulating or poorly regulating the financial system leads to a catastrophe, you insist on ignoring these historical data and my reasoned argument and explanation in the absence of a mathematical model that more accurately predicts the economic data that you want to predict—data that doesn't even include the variables that I see as being crucially important to an understanding of the historical data that I try to understand and explain. You boldly take this position in spite of the fact that this is the same kind of reasoning and argument used to ridicule and marginalize those economists who tried to oppose the economic policies that were responsible for blowing up the world’s economy in the first place. <br /><br />This seemed rather confusing to me at first, but I now suspect the key to this mystery may be hidden in your response to my statement: "If you had bothered to look at these references ... it would have become apparent to you that I have spent an excruciating amount of time and effort in examining data and attempting to develop a theory that explains that data." <br /><br />(Continued here: http://www.rweconomics.com/DearJason.htm#PtII )Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16011736382575746163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-24979371425429256172016-11-06T08:38:04.302-08:002016-11-06T08:38:04.302-08:00It is exceedingly difficult for me to understand w...It is exceedingly difficult for me to understand why you insist on defending the use of Friedman's methodology in physics in criticizing my paper. My paper is about the misuse of Friedman’s methodology in economics, not in physics. <br /><br />Over the past fifty years mainstream economists have developed highly sophisticated mathematical models based on absurd assumptions that were justified in the name of Friedman's as if methodology. Those models were used as an intellectual justification for deregulating the financial system in a way that blew up the world's economy. This occurred in spite of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of years of historical data have shown that unregulated or poorly regulated financial institutions inevitably lead to financial crises that, in turn, cause economic, political, and social catastrophes. <br /><br />When I tried to discover why this happened I found that in spite of the overwhelming historical evidence that warned of the catastrophe that would result, virtually no mainstream economists spoke out against this deregulation as it took place, and those who tried were ridiculed and marginalized within the discipline of economics in much the same way you marginalize Minsky, Keynes, and what I have tried to do in Where Did All The Money Go?. I also discovered that the reason virtually no mainstream economists spoke out against this deregulation is that over the past fifty years free-market ideological beliefs have come to permeate the discipline of economics, facilitated by an egregious misuse of Friedman's as if methodology. <br /><br />When I write a paper attempting to explain this misuse within the discipline of economics you ridicule my attempt mercilessly in defense of its use in physics. At the same time, in one of the posts you link to you claim: <br /><br />"I am not defending the implications Friedman makes from this analogy about economics . . . . The problem is that this analogy doesn't defend against theories that fail to match the data which is a more serious issue in economics than a particular mathematical approach." <br /><br />You will just have to forgive me for finding this a bit confusing.<br /><br />When I present a reasoned analysis of the historical data and a detailed explanation as to why the inevitable result of deregulating or poorly regulating the financial system leads to a catastrophe, you insist on ignoring these historical data and my reasoned argument and explanation in the absence of a mathematical model that more accurately predicts the economic data that you want to predict—data that doesn't even include the variables that I see as being crucially important to an understanding of the historical data that I try to understand and explain. You boldly take this position in spite of the fact that this is the same kind of reasoning and argument used to ridicule and marginalize those economists who tried to oppose the economic policies that were responsible for blowing up the world’s economy in the first place. <br /><br />This seemed rather confusing to me at first, but I now suspect the key to this mystery may be hidden in your response to my statement: "If you had bothered to look at these references ... it would have become apparent to you that I have spent an excruciating amount of time and effort in examining data and attempting to develop a theory that explains that data." <br /><br />(Continued here: http://www.rweconomics.com/DearJason.htm#PtII )<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16011736382575746163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-31520083564685110162016-11-04T17:45:14.926-07:002016-11-04T17:45:14.926-07:00I left a comment on his original evonomics post co...I left a comment on his original evonomics post consisting of a link to here as well a few days back, just for good measure. But I suppose you're right: it's of little consequence.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-13556042548963710792016-11-04T16:22:27.114-07:002016-11-04T16:22:27.114-07:00It's a home away from home.
Gone.It's a home away from home. <br /><br />Gone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-89357538806813060942016-11-04T16:18:44.049-07:002016-11-04T16:18:44.049-07:00They finally came to pick you up, huh?They finally came to pick you up, huh?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-34708618303448368502016-11-04T16:11:41.072-07:002016-11-04T16:11:41.072-07:00Anyway, I have commitments to meet - gotta go.Anyway, I have commitments to meet - gotta go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-64407120861752171502016-11-04T16:05:40.388-07:002016-11-04T16:05:40.388-07:00Remember to take Ariandne's thread with you.Remember to take Ariandne's thread with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-10791411095424565562016-11-04T16:02:57.225-07:002016-11-04T16:02:57.225-07:00Data mining your comments.Data mining your comments.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-88018413912061538782016-11-04T15:55:13.006-07:002016-11-04T15:55:13.006-07:00So if you say of yourself "I have no idea wha...So if you say of yourself "I have no idea what you are talking about" how can you say "I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about either"?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-76300692249246713872016-11-04T15:50:28.624-07:002016-11-04T15:50:28.624-07:00I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are ...I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about either.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-65368160222591611252016-11-04T15:48:08.432-07:002016-11-04T15:48:08.432-07:00"I have no idea what you are talking about.&q..."I have no idea what you are talking about."<br /><br />I know. It's pretty obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-54430717843622399262016-11-04T15:46:18.351-07:002016-11-04T15:46:18.351-07:00I have no idea what you are talking about.I have no idea what you are talking about.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-76589775737841093462016-11-04T15:06:03.878-07:002016-11-04T15:06:03.878-07:00Again, you won't admit to a simple distinction...Again, you won't admit to a simple distinction because it will compromise everything you assert.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-74681580856334979542016-11-04T14:39:35.249-07:002016-11-04T14:39:35.249-07:00explain
ex·plain
ikˈsplān
verb
make (an idea, sit...<b>explain</b><br /><br /><i>ex·plain<br />ikˈsplān<br />verb<br />make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by <b>describing it</b> in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.<br /></i><br /><br />You keep setting 'em up, and I'll keep pwning you.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-31024549958217560752016-11-04T14:29:29.689-07:002016-11-04T14:29:29.689-07:00"Consider yourself pwned."
LOL!
I don&..."Consider yourself pwned."<br /><br />LOL!<br /><br />I don't expect you to get the distinction.<br /><br />".....describing economic systems"<br /><br />Describing not explaining.<br /><br />Oh! that's right you're not interested in explaining things as long as the methodology stacks up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-91390920726901268182016-11-04T09:18:25.941-07:002016-11-04T09:18:25.941-07:00econometrics
e·con·o·met·rics
iˌkänəˈmetriks
nou...<b><a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant#safe=off&q=definition+econometrics" rel="nofollow">econometrics</a></b><br /><br /><i><br />e·con·o·met·rics<br />iˌkänəˈmetriks<br />noun<br /><br />the <b>branch of economics</b> concerned with the use of mathematical methods (especially statistics) in describing economic systems<br /></i><br /><br />Emphasis mine. Consider yourself pwned.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-79620512385129522252016-11-04T09:08:52.161-07:002016-11-04T09:08:52.161-07:00"Also, econometrics is a subfield of economic..."Also, econometrics is a subfield of economics."<br /><br />Given the way you do business, I figured you wouldn't get the distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-2850228275558698502016-11-03T17:06:54.707-07:002016-11-03T17:06:54.707-07:00At the link I was referencing, is not about curve ...<a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/07/list-of-standard-economics-derived-from.html" rel="nofollow">At the link I was referencing</a>, is not about curve fitting. It is about deriving the same equations and functional relationships as mainstream economics.<br /><br />Also, econometrics is a subfield of economics.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-13018100793166249912016-11-03T16:26:06.545-07:002016-11-03T16:26:06.545-07:00"I guess joining them is beating them now?&qu..."I guess joining them is beating them now?"<br /><br />I can't say that curve fitting is anything to crow about.<br /><br />It's not economics, it's econometrics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-33918251688431189942016-11-03T11:05:47.451-07:002016-11-03T11:05:47.451-07:00To the extent it sticks to theory and avoids the s...<i>To the extent it sticks to theory and avoids the self serving justifications and hubris ...</i><br /><br />Of which you alone are the judge, to be sure.<br /><br />Some people call "self-serving justifications" "supporting evidence in favor of one's arguments". Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.<br /><br /><i>celebrating victory over all other economic paradigms</i><br /><br />Yes, but I celebrate this victory in an odd way by <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/07/list-of-standard-economics-derived-from.html" rel="nofollow">cataloging the ways</a> I come up with the same results as other economic paradigms. I guess joining them is beating them now?Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-15150260333728802622016-11-02T17:11:59.821-07:002016-11-02T17:11:59.821-07:00"..which I imagine you will give a poor revie..."..which I imagine you will give a poor review on Amazon when it comes out."<br /><br />To the extent it sticks to theory and avoids the self serving justifications and hubris (i.e. celebrating victory over all other economic paradigms), I'll be interested. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-34119199409312109432016-11-02T16:22:41.174-07:002016-11-02T16:22:41.174-07:00No idea. Maybe he checked "alert me to new co...No idea. Maybe he checked "alert me to new comments" or whatever when he commented before, in which case, yes.<br /><br />Not that I really care very much. He didn't really engage with what I wrote in good faith, and basically continued with his own interpretation of Newton's laws in his reply ("I find this a bit confusing ... blah blah blah, same garbage he said before") despite being told he was wrong by a physicist.<br /><br />And for a Phd economist (purportedly), he doesn't seem to understand economics very well. By far, the most influential aspect of Friedman's paper was the positive (vs normative) aspect, not the "as if" methodology which in my reading absolutely no economics professor seems to use.<br /><br />I found it somewhat ironic that Blackford misunderstood my use of the word "positive" given we are arguing about Friedman's positive economics paper. He should have at least understood the existence of positive/normative in addition to good/bad.<br /><br />I can't imagine he's going to read this post in good faith. But maybe I'll be surprised.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-42017381536190566832016-11-02T15:57:52.754-07:002016-11-02T15:57:52.754-07:00You characterization of physics is incorrect. You ...You characterization of physics is incorrect. You probably think the discipline is limited to what the <a href="https://arxiv.org/" rel="nofollow">arXiv</a> designates as hep-th and hep-ex.<br /><br />My real job is actually as a physicist. There are two other physics Phds and one math Phd in our group.<br /><br />I do this stuff mostly for fun. However some other reasons will be in my <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-random-physicist-takes-on-economics.html" rel="nofollow">book</a>, which I imagine you will give a poor review on Amazon when it comes out.<br />Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-90711371239000497392016-11-02T15:45:26.012-07:002016-11-02T15:45:26.012-07:00Were you able to alert George H. Blackford of the ...Were you able to alert George H. Blackford of the existence of this post? I tweeted it to him, but the twitter account (if it's actually his) looks inactive.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-12989710742983174032016-11-02T15:26:38.762-07:002016-11-02T15:26:38.762-07:00"Cool story bro."
Is it a story?
Why i..."Cool story bro."<br /><br />Is it a story?<br /><br />Why is a clever physicist/mathematician playing around in economics?<br /><br />You would think he would be plying his trade in his chosen discipline/profession where he could make a significant contribution.<br /><br />I am willing to bet that the reason you have latched on to economics is partly, if not mainly, because there is scope (no pun intended) to contribute to a discipline in turmoil. Economics is alive and pulsing, with controversy yes, but pulsing.<br /><br />Whereas physics is moribund, stagnating, going nowhere (for the last 50 years).<br /><br />I would in part put this down to an emphasis on methodology.<br /><br />It would not surprise to see at the next major physics conference, the attendees standing around in a circle, holding hands, singing Kumbaya - the highlight of the conference.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com