tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post1355064699460593468..comments2023-10-30T03:48:20.087-04:00Comments on anti-mankiw: the weaknesses of analogical reasoningDaniel MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-36359970569820249622012-08-25T23:50:01.015-04:002012-08-25T23:50:01.015-04:00"I think it's about time economics as a s..."I think it's about time economics as a subject went the way of Astrology. "<br /><br />Agreed. We need a new name for the replacement -- "theory of wealth and money"?neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-63638373833362117642012-08-25T23:49:10.109-04:002012-08-25T23:49:10.109-04:00"we don't actually believe in perfect com..."we don't actually believe in perfect competition, but it's a benchmark against which we judge more realistic market structures. For example, think of it as analogous to physicists assuming away friction when modelling the motion of an object along an inclined plane". <br /><br />Competent physicists do not assume away friction. My intro textbook (Tipler) introduces friction in chapter 1. Feynman talks in _Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman_ (or possibly the sequel) about how Brazil was teaching cargo-cult physics by leaving out friction.<br /><br />This shows how sick economists are. They're aping physicists, but they don't even know how physics works -- they're aping *incompetent, unscientific* physicists, the worst sort.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-82169131075450667202012-06-05T13:09:09.529-04:002012-06-05T13:09:09.529-04:00"An example of how ideologically biased econo..."An example of how ideologically biased economists are is when my macro lecturer was talking about a talk given at my university by a heterodox economist talking about evolutionary economics. "<br /><br />One of the problems with evolutionary economics, I find, is precisely the opposite. Evolutionary economics *should* be studied as a science. That is, there should be an expectation that meaningful policy implications are a long way off. The problem I have with evolutionary economics is precisely the opposite. They use evolutionary models to study market structure over time when evolutionary concepts will have clearly contributed to the creation of market structures in the first place. In this sense, I find evolutionary anthropology do a much better job of linking scientific theory to economics.<br /><br />The problem is actually much more apparent in other social sciences. At least in economics it does have an emphasis on deduction, albeit deducing relationships from a crude view of the world. I saw one economist claim economic models were works of art. He was defending them!<br /><br />Sociology, for example, can, in the rare paper, model human behaviour, but by-in-large is much more romantic than the most fanciful economic theory. To say sociologists have not had an impact on policy ignores the way public policy has been going over the last twenty years. Their work is extremely conservative and theory tends to be used to justify their existence.<br /><br />I kind of agree with you, but think the problem extends well beyond economics and even encompasses many of the physical sciences now; medicine, climate change, asteroid mining. Just read Nature or watch a TED lecture. Nothing but speculation. Academia is now big business, and so too are publishers. If you cannot show relevance of your work, you do not have a future. I guess Anti-Mankiw is claiming economic theory is partly to blame.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10595162828423102232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-23840256656043141012012-06-04T14:45:01.881-04:002012-06-04T14:45:01.881-04:00I think you do a great job attempting to forge an ...I think you do a great job attempting to forge an alternative, but I really do think that the whole economics establishment is 100% corrupt, and most of the "research" being conducted is simply gobbledegook with the sole intention of protecting the rotten core from criticism. Mainstream neoliberal economists will say "Oh you've got a poor understanding of the frontiers of research, why not read some of the academic papers?". <br /><br />They say this because most of academic economics is complete pseudoscience, using archaic mathematical concepts and applying them in totally inappropriate ways. It makes as much sense as a 3 year old doodling on a page absent mindedly. However, because economic research is so unfathomable that people don't know how to proceed to criticise it, which again protects the centre (although blogs like yours do a very good job).<br /><br />My opinion is that forging an alternative is not really possible, and the best thing that people opposed to the neoliberal hegemony can do is be more explicitly anti-economics, because the subject is responsible for most of the morally abhorrent policies being pursued by governments around the world. I don't see why the other social sciences and humanities subjects cannot then take over the issues that economists look at now, like production, distribution and allocation of resources. I have no doubt they'd do a much better job than economists, mainly because those disciplines haven't been taken over by corporate interests.<br /><br />I long for the day when governments stop funding this pseudoscience, and tell the corporations and big businesses that if you want to produce the next generation of economists to do your bidding, fund private colleges yourselves. This will have the added benefit of helping the government reallocate funding to the social sciences that have been chronically underfunded, and also will stop all those talented mathematicians and physicists who waste their talent by enrolling in graduate programs in mainstream neoliberal economics at Ivy League colleges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-20706708421667572612012-06-04T10:49:12.202-04:002012-06-04T10:49:12.202-04:00Redshift: great point. When econ profs use the phy...Redshift: great point. When econ profs use the physics analogy, I think a great way to counter back is to ask, "do molecules think for themselves?". The fact that they don't means modeling molecule behavior is far less risky than modeling individual behavior. <br /><br />I got into graduate work b/c I wanted to change how the profession thinks. I'm not so much interested in that anymore, although I am to a degree. Now I'm more interested in contributing to an alternative...Daniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-81484433614854323552012-06-04T06:41:56.952-04:002012-06-04T06:41:56.952-04:00I find the analogical reasoning extremely annoying...I find the analogical reasoning extremely annoying when studying economics as well (I've just finished by undergraduate degree). For example, when learning about the make-believe world of perfect competition, our lecturer said that,<br />"we don't actually believe in perfect competition, but it's a benchmark against which we judge more realistic market structures. For example, think of it as analogous to physicists assuming away friction when modelling the motion of an object along an inclined plane". <br /><br />However, this comparison between economics and physics is completely bogus, and is hugely offensive to a proper science like physics that actually follows the scientific method, is rigorous and whose theories have infinitely greater predictive power and internal consistency.<br /><br />I know this is quite a bleak outlook but I don't think graduate training in economics serves any purpose tbh apart from indoctrinating the next generation of economists in neoliberal dogma. There isn't a free market in economic ideas, because if you try to pursue ideas outside the mainstream, you're not on an equal footing to those who follow the mainstream neoliberal research program. I think it's about time economics as a subject went the way of Astrology. <br /><br />An example of how ideologically biased economists are is when my macro lecturer was talking about a talk given at my university by a heterodox economist talking about evolutionary economics. His tone was so disparaging, as if the guy didn't know what he was talking about, and he made an off-hand remark about how he was "one of those old Keynesian lefties" as if being left wing makes your views wrong. This told me how poisonous the subject has become, and why I decided against doing a masters in it, even though I was planning on it at the start of my degree. I simply couldn't carry on being part of this right wing neoliberal machine that has devasted the world economically, ecologically and morally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-796677038993432616.post-83243293314483118222012-06-04T06:36:34.882-04:002012-06-04T06:36:34.882-04:00I always cringe at the analogies between the theor...I always cringe at the analogies between the theory of evolution and the political basis for capitalism. Krugman espoused this exact position.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10595162828423102232noreply@blogger.com