Kyle Montanio
Yes! I haven't heard it explained in that exact way, but 100%.
Economics took a strange and terrible turn when they tried to emulate physics and find the rules of human behavior in math.
It's such a shame that is the way economics is most often viewed- and downright shameful how many economists view it that way without any introspection.
phiofx
@FantasticalEconomics @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
It seems important to split out the "good parts" of economics. In this respect I find the anti-math streak a bit silly. Its not mathematical economics that is the problem, it is how it is used to effectively justify what is desired: "if I imagine so-and-so agents then this 'behavior' is optimal".
E.g. econometrics is closer to being useful but even there are incredible biases about *what* is being measured
Kyle Montanio
Lots of blame to go around for that. That whole mentality really took the field by storm.
The first chapter of "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth does a great job explaining that transition of economics from a social science to applied math (to emulate physics).
One of my favorite reads related to #degrowth and moving away from the problematic neoclassical paradigm.
Phil Stevens :tinoflag:
@FantasticalEconomics @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern You can blame Jevons for that. Because of his science and engineering background, he thought economics should follow similar axiomatic frameworks. His blind spots were failures to recognise that markets are an emergent property of human psychology, and that all financial activity is inextricably dependent on biophysical resources.
phiofx
@phil_stevens @FantasticalEconomics @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
yes. and if economics *really* aimed to emulate physics it would have at least token recognition that any and all economic behavior takes place in a limited biosphere and is deeply intertwinned with its energetic and biological cycles.
Economics as we know it is a thing apart. In modern terms a AI hallucination of sorts, but created by a human brain collective that needed certain answers - and found them.
Phil Stevens :tinoflag:
@phiofx @FantasticalEconomics @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern No quarrel with math and rigour from this corner. It's the unprovable assertions regarded as bedrock, and the unstable house of cards that gets built on them. That's the essence of the rot.
That, and the inescapable tendency of orthodox economists to act as apologists for capital while they handwave pesky externalities like wrecking our only livable planet so that a tiny fraction of us can fly around in private jets.
phiofx
I think what plagued "economics as science" from early on is that it is too relevant for power structures to leave it alone
i) it identifies potent policy levers. those must be controlled
ii) in contrast with pretty much everything else in the universe, modifying economic structures is fairly easy.
E.g., you wake up one morning and everybody is happily minting "trillions of bitcoin value"
@FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern you need a theory to do any sort of prescriptive analysis though. Empirical work can tell you what happened, but you need a theory to suggest why, how, or if it will happen again in a different place under different circumstances.
In this specific case, there are multiple models that have labor increasing in response to a minimum wage. I even made one.
Kyle Montanio
I agree that is true for predictive models. However many economic models are not predictive in nature but, rather, seek to explain behavior or understand policy.
Take the idea that minimum wage causes job loss. It's all based on a simple math model that's been used to attack minimum wage growth even though most studies show no impact or actually an increase in jobs.
The issue goes beyond predicting the future.
@phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
And it's not just human psychology either. Weather affects the economy too. How far into future can we predict the weather and with what confidence?
@phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
A rigourous and precise economics model cannot exist, because it would mean we are able to predict the future.
Economic models would necessarily be recursive as well. Even today with our imprecise models growth projections published by governments and companies affect the markets. Imagine what would happen if they were even more precise.
"Inflation expectations" are a nice little example of this in action.
@phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
My issue is that you cannot build much of the mathmatical rigour without such unrealistic assumptions as to make the models near useless.
Today, much of economics is embracing statistics as the primary tool to understanding human behavior and their impacts. I find this a much better way to keep the field rigorous and get to meaningful answers.
It makes it much harder for economics to be used to just maintain the status quo, imo.
@phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
phiofx
@mwt @jackofalltrades @FantasticalEconomics @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
once I asked a fairly senior economist if there is a set of economic facts that all economists agree on. he mumbled something about supply/demand but conceded there isn't that much
Imho restoring trust in the economics profession would benefit if one could objectively tag the level of confidence in various propositions. Addressing the "Market for Economic Theory Lemons" problem if you wish :-)
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern no, it really is ideologically diverse. There are shared beliefs, but economists disagree about many things and run a large range of political views. On what basis do you claim this lack of ideological diversity? How many economists do you know?
I chose that statement because it's one that no one disagrees with. It's demonstrated all the time in passing.
Jack of all trades
No, mainstream economics is not ideologically diverse in any shape or form, don't be ridiculous.
You are trying to argue that mainstream economics is a "real" science, while heterodox schools are "ideological". Just because you are blind to the ideology behind mainstream economics doesn't mean it's not there. And there is plenty, in many of its assumptions and methodologies.
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
Please do go ahead and prove an easy statement from Marx, like "workers are paid less than the value they provide to a firm" using mainstream tools. Make sure your definition of "value" is not ideological though. Good luck! 😉
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Eg, proving a statement from Marx using mainstream tools (perhaps an easy one like that workers are paid less than the value they provide to a firm) does not make you a Marxist economist. No one assumes everything that Marx said is false.
I think the division is whether the researcher's evidence is even attempting to persuade economists in the mainstream. 2/2
Matthew W. Thomas
@FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern I think that mainstream economics is ideologically quite diverse. Obviously, heterodox schools like Marxist economics and MMT are ideologically driven (you can't be in that field without getting that result).
I think the boundary between heterodox and mainstream is the set of methods used. 1/2
Kyle Montanio
That's true. I was overly harsh on the theory side here, or perhaps too general.
The risk comes from when theory and ideology guide the field and results as, I'd argue, is largely the case for the prominent neoliberal paradigm.
I think the orthodox economists of today (excluding that school probably) have a much better balance of theory and real world observations.
@jackofalltrades @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
Based on that alone it's easy to see how huge blind spots of the mainstream economics can be. Not just what is studied, but how it is studied is influenced by ideological bent of people involved.
2/3
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
My favorite lesson in principles classes is to Google image "famous economist" and just show them the string of old white dudes.
And the field lags drastically behind all of STEM in terms of women and minority representation all of which are getting much closer to parity while economics has made little to no change.
@mwt @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
First of all, the field of economics is probably the least diverse field in terms of who works in it, whether you consider gender, race or socioeconomic status. It's mostly old white middle-class men, and it shows.
https://theconversation.com/the-gender-gap-in-economics-is-huge-its-even-worse-than-tech-156275
https://hbr.org/2022/06/economics-needs-more-socioeconomic-diversity
1/3
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern there are also no "sacred" assumptions. People remove them and change them and try to work without them all the time. There are discussions about what the assumptions rule out and what happens when they are removed.
Also, the vast majority of economic research is empirical and these assumptions are only applicable to theory. Empirical work uses Statistical assumptions.
phiofx
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @lienrag @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Completely orthogonal to the topic but as this is my first experience of a multi-user discussion (otherwise interesting), I must say the #mastodon UI is not well suited for this. There is a chaotic number of parallel threads that are not easy to find. With every new @handle the space for text diminishes, like the last bricks in a tetris game you are about to lose.
And thats the simple stuff...
Matthew W. Thomas
I don't know what would have been considered heterodox in the 1970s. That was before there was a synthesis and the Chicago school was obviously not ideologically diverse.
I think that the camps that existed in macro back then were bad for science in much the same way that heterodox camps are today. You don't want groups that only accept certain conclusions.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
While that can happen, I think you drastically discount how hard it is for new ideas to enter the mainstream.
How long did it take for something basic like inequality to be considered by economists? It was decades of the Chicago school saying we only need to focus on maximizing growth and that inequality is not worth considering (it'll fix itself, after all). And that's what mainstream journals publish.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern that's basically what heterodox means. Heterodox fields are created when research fails peer review and the authors create a new journal and field with like-minded individuals who will sign off on their work.
If you have a nonsense methodology and junk results, you can establish a heterodox field, train a few students to rubber stamp your work and begin branding it as the real science.
Jack of all trades
No way! It's obvious that the mainstream economists are The Real Scientists. They're mostly old white men, but it's fine, because the field is actually very diverse. They cover all the topics and use the correct tools. You can be sure they are not ideological, because they use math.
On the other hand the heterodox schools are like flat earthers and homeopathy, very ideological, not scientific at all.
/s
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Lien Rag
The word you're looking for is "flat-earth economist".
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades no, the classical growth models involve a steady state with no growth. Growth slows as you approach the steady state and stops if you were to reach it. Steady state stuff is part of growth and has been since the beginning.
Heterodox material certainly is "notably different", but not in a good way. Flat earther science is notably different from mainstream astronomy as well.
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Aren't you a classical economist, but not in a good way. 😅
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Sure, if you spell "steady-state economics" as "growth" then it becomes a mainstream economic idea. 😁
Same with all the other ideas listed. Their treatment in feminist, ecological or post-Keynesian economics is notably different from their treatment in the mainstream.
Jack of all trades
In particular, mainstream economics do not deal with topics that are a focus of heterodox economics schools. These include:
- non-capitalist forms of organisation and work
- non-market activities (like childcare and domestic work)
- steady-state economies
- treating human economy as a part of Earth's ecosystem
- rejecting economic equilibrium models
and more.
3/3
@FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades @FantasticalEconomics @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @lienrag @gerrymcgovern
I'll give you the largest I can think of for each:
- public choice
- family economics
- growth
- subsets of environmental, particularly non-hedonic models
- equilibrium refinements
Those are not heterodox ideas. I don't know why you think that they are.
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
I don't claim that heterodox ideas are being suppressed, only that they are ignored by the mainstream. As I've already showed you, they are passing peer-review and being published in the most prestigious journals. This is not a conspiracy, but simply a consequence of a very narrow-minded economics education system.
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Based on my limited exposure to mainstream economists I can say that they study the economy in a very peculiar way, divorced from reality. They focus on money and GDP while being blind to basics like energy, resources, and in some cases space and time. Their understanding of biophysical constraints is non-existent.
phiofx
something that delays what one might call the inevitable process of moving to "a new and less broken economics" is that its... really hard. I have read and reread Raworth's Doughnut Economics (and will read it again soon) but it is still a call to action, a to-do list.
Mainstream economists benefit from cookie-cutter frameworks, conceptually flawed but accepted as publish (or perish) toolkits.
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
All that experience is valuable for cutting through nonsense points and nonsense criticisms. It's not a badge of honor for an idea to be rejected by 99% of the people who dedicate their life to studying the subject. It's a bad sign.
It's fine to think that there could occasionally be good ideas there. I hoped that was the case, but was disappointed after reading from their journals. 2/2
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades I understand the appeal of the idea that the real ideas are being suppressed by a cabal of ideologues. It's why conspiracy theories stay alive.
The truth is simpler. Economists spend their lives thinking about these issues. We spend our lives thinking of criticisms, coming up with solutions, and responding to criticism of our own work. There is constant innovation within the profession. 1/2
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
This whole discussion stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a heterodox economist.
What makes them heterodox is not that their ideas or science are flawed, but only the fact that their ideas are not picked up by the majority of economists.
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Their ideas are not popular, or "mainstream", because vast majority of economists have been indoctrinated in a certain way of thinking about the economy.
Heterodox economics research is not "nonsense methodologies and junk results", but rather it's unfamiliar and threatening to the status quo.
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Fine, I have ten minutes to spare.
Herman Daly has research published in The American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (pre 2014).
Steve Keen: PNAS and Ecological Economics.
Kate Raworth: The Lancet Planetary Health and Global Environmental Change.
I read these are all peer-reviewed publications with a high impact factor.
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
How do you know it's below the bar? Who sets the bar and gets to differentiate between "innovative, important research" and pseudoscience?
Is Kate Raworth's work "below the bar"? Steven Keen's? David Harvey's? Was Herman Daly's?
What journals they got rejected from and what new journals they created to legimitize their "nonsense methodologies and junk results"?
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades you can lookup what peer review is. It's a standard process. No one has come up with something better.
Obviously anything heterodox has been rejected by the mainstream. That's what it means to not be in the mainstream.
I'm not going to lookup a bunch a random names for you. You can find out for yourself who created the journals of various heterodox schools.
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades I see these as two very different things. If the field successfully rejected all flawed research, it would also reject lots of innovative, important research. A lot of initial attempts are more flawed than iterative improvements in a mature field.
It's exactly because being in the mainstream is *not* so prestigious that I am suspicious of work that is below the bar.
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
You saying that there is only one right way to do economics is like a philosopher saying that everything outside of existentialism is not real philosophy.
I don't claim to know the totality of mainstream economics and I'm sure there is plenty of good research out there. What I do know though are some high-profile examples of the mainstream research that is not only clearly wrong, but actively harmful.
2/4
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
One such example is Nordhaus' work on DICE. If this is the celebrated peer-reviewed "real science" of economics then don't be surprised that people don't treat the mainstream seriously.
In fact, this suggests that being accepted into this prestigious club of white old men is not really such an honor you say it is. They seem to be the ones doing the rubber-stamping and patting themselves on the back.
3/4
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
I hope you can see how you trying to paint anyone outside of this clique as fraudsters and pseudoscientists only hurts your argument.
4/4
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
"You don't want groups that only accept certain conclusions."
Agreed!
To me the mainstream appears like such a group though. Economics is a social science and due to the subject matter it cannot ever reach the rigor and objectivity of a natural science like physics. That's why I think plurality of voices and points of view is very important.
1/4
Matthew W. Thomas
I don't claim that all critiques from the outside are wrong because of the identity of the person making them. People outside the profession just tend to make the same criticisms (I binned them into three buckets). It's hard to present a new critique without a deep understanding of what you are critiquing.
It would be hard for me to construct valid criticisms of physics. I would annoy them.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
phiofx
An important difference between economics and physics/chemistry etc in the context of this discussion is that they are once separated from societal impact. E.g., one needs the engineering professions before nuclear physics means anything concrete. In contrast, there is no such thing as an "economic systems engineer". Economists routinely, profitably, and frequently disastrously play that role.
@FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @lienrag @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
Correct. I'm calling us bad scientists for not listening to the reaearch and substantial scientific evidence that is outside the narrow tract of mainstream economics.
Discounting outside views is bad advice in almost every situation, and research is no exception. The bias that economists tend to have, the hubris to not listen to others, is highly problematic.
I strongly suggest you sit with that for a bit.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
Exactly. You don't hold this irritation against them or call them bad scientists because of it.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
That... may be an even worse interpretation. You know what economists are most known for, right? It's jumping into realms we don't know and making naive models we were trained on and pretending they have meaning in contexts we don't have a clue about.
Which brings us back to Nordhaus and the climate. Climate scientists are rightfully pissed because of this armchair theory and people listening to it.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
I was saying that economists seem defensive about criticism of Economics (the subject, not the profession) from outside the field because it's hard to make a good point from the outside.
This isn't limited to economics. People in fields would be annoyed by me if I start taking cooking up armchair criticisms and theories.
@jackofalltrades @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Kyle Montanio
I'm objectivity in the discipline (neoclassically trained PhD, practicing economist, and follows research both in and out of the mainstream) and very much agree with @jackofalltrades understanding of the publishing situation.
At the very least, it's unfair to say he is wrong because he is 'not in the field', which is how I interpret that lastresponse.
@lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Matthew W. Thomas
@jackofalltrades that's because you're not in the discipline. There are (1) criticisms which are addressed, (2) ones that are known but not fully addressed, and (3) ones that are unknown.
Hitting (3) or (2) with a good solution is a contribution, but it's difficult to do this from the outside without training. It's the same for every field.
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
Jack of all trades
@mwt @FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
And most notably, they become very defensive if anyone dares to question their theories and assumptions. Definitely not the open-minded scientists you say they are.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.