Notices by Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)

@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

@FantasticalEconomics

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

@FantasticalEconomics

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

@FantasticalEconomics

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

@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

@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

@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

@jackofalltrades

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

@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.

@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

@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.

@FantasticalEconomics

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

@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.

@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

@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

@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.

@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.

@feld @tonofcrates aren't those just the properties of epubs that, already exist?

I think the issue is that many people who make PDFs don't want flexibility, they want total control/consistency of the end product (and PDFs are very good at that)

@tonofcrates I like the PDF theme

@feld oh, I'm going to buy 10 years of my .me right now