tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post4069866893964485427..comments2020-02-13T17:31:44.442-08:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: A random physicist takes on economics: the first draftJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-82963903184788124202016-09-10T15:58:39.798-07:002016-09-10T15:58:39.798-07:00@Jason (September 7, 2016 at 12:37 PM).
To me at...@Jason (September 7, 2016 at 12:37 PM).<br /><br /><br /><i>To me at least it seems you do see economists explaining successes with expectations.</i><br /><br />Not at all. Quite to the contrary and that's precisely my point.<br /><br />Think of it this way.<br /><br />Let's call "expectations, uncertainties, animal spirits, and confidence fairies" EUASCF (for convenience).<br /><br />Now, let's play this little game of chance: you and I throw a coin; if it's heads, I win; if it's tails, you lose. You see the trick, right?<br /><br />The same thing happens with EUASCF and economists: just replace me and you in the game of chance, with "economists" and "EUASCF".<br /><br />Things aren't okay? It's not the economists' fault, they say and pull the EUASCF card. EUASCF lose.<br /><br />Things are okay? Economists claim the credit for that: Economists win.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Or, in other words, if they explain failure with EUASCF, then consistency would demand they explained success with EUASCF.<br /><br />But they don't.<br /><br />That's my point.<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-70276524424405332422016-09-07T12:37:46.123-07:002016-09-07T12:37:46.123-07:00Cheers, Mr. Zebub.
RE: But you don't see thos...Cheers, Mr. Zebub.<br /><br />RE: <i>But you don't see those economists speaking of expectations ... </i><br /><br />To me at least it seems you do see economists explaining successes with expectations (nearly all of macro is about expectations, so any success there would be a success of expectations) -- however many times it appears (in my mind) as a just-so story.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-44888183746831704442016-09-07T09:13:35.006-07:002016-09-07T09:13:35.006-07:00Diane,
Thank you for the encouragement!
Regardin...Diane,<br /><br />Thank you for the encouragement!<br /><br />Regarding the math, I should probably edit the specific wording I used above if it makes you think of defending its clarifying aspects. I have no problem (<a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/11/math-up.html" rel="nofollow">and have frequently endorsed</a>) the idea of using math to be precise and logical.<br /><br />My critique is about the treatment of scales (mostly time scales), limits (how to take time scales which have units to infinity which has no units), and scopes (the limits, scales, and assumptions that define the realm of validity of the theory). In a sense my critique is about being sloppy with mathematical logic when it comes to real-life systems. However, it isn't Paul Romer's "mathiness" critique -- I criticize both sides of his argument with Robert Lucas. No economic argument should ever refer to uniform convergence of a limit. Uniform convergence issues don't crop up in real life and the situations where the math says it does are a sign one has taken the theory out of scope.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Anonymous,<br /><br />I am neither sure if you are addressing me or Diane, nor whether the set of "reality depleted assumptions" has the same definition among the three of us (and therefore exactly which assumptions you are challenging).Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-45156196057622881782016-09-07T01:11:00.526-07:002016-09-07T01:11:00.526-07:00What about the reality depleted assumptions you us...What about the reality depleted assumptions you use?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-81536624625652070552016-09-07T00:48:09.043-07:002016-09-07T00:48:09.043-07:00I'll look forward to reading it but one commen...I'll look forward to reading it but one comment on your brief point about maths. My view is that my colleagues and I use the maths as a notation of logic & it isn't as different as it looks from, say, historians modelling the causes of the 1st world war, except with symbols. The advantages are: brevity; clarity about where logic takes you; ability to bring data to the model with statistical tests.Diane Coylehttp://www.enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-55283642046878308442016-09-04T22:27:22.150-07:002016-09-04T22:27:22.150-07:00I will question the role of expectations in econom...<i>I will question the role of expectations in economics. If you have ever read, listened to or watched business news, you will be familiar with market expectations. Company ABC's stock can tumble if their earnings don't meet “the Street's” expectations. In the hands of economists, these expectations become a way for changes in the future to impact the present and allow them to explain literally any possible result.</i><br /><br />Amen.<br /><br />That's what makes of expectations, uncertainties, animal spirits, confidence fairies a favorite of economists (particularly those working for the government): an ideal scapegoat when things go wrong.<br /><br />http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2014/sp-gov-200814.html<br /><br />But you don't see those economists speaking of expectations, uncertainties, animal spirits, and confidence fairies when things actually work out the right way.<br /><br />And they say that I am the deceiver.<br /><br />B.L. ZebubAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com