pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 10 Jul \ parent \ on: Are Pro-Natalists the Real Malthusians? econ
I guess that’s where we differ. I’d say models often work fine, until they don’t.
Perhaps the models only work within specified limits and any time other factors or going outside the limits of the model happens, they fail. I guess you could say that within the limits models work fine. That is my problem with models. There seems to be less problems with deductive or inductive reasoning, IMHO.
reply
I think the word "models" is just too broad. There's a wide range of models, from statistical models that just illustrate relationships in the data without any reference to human action, to theoretical models that start by positing the rational choice framework and works their way up from there--these are explicitly based on human action, but they often make bad assumptions about the humans. And then of course there's everything in between.
reply
I guess you are saying that there are all kinds of useless for purpose models due to faulty assumptions or faulty baselines or even, faulty reasoning.
Whenever I think of models, I look at one of my kids clay representations of a cat and wonder if this is what modeling is all about. We know what the inputs are and what the outputs are supposed to look like, but there is no semblance of input to output when all is said and done, at least in terms of economic theory.
reply
I think the extreme negative attitude that Austrians have towards models of any kind is really limiting their ability to move forward as a system of economic thought. It's too bad because I agree with Austrian on many things
reply
I don't even think they're as uniformly opposed to modeling as they seem.
For example, Bob Murphy often does numerical exercises to illustrate his points. They tend to use models to illustrate points, though, rather than to evaluate how well a model describes observations.
The way Hoppe puts the critique, is that doing empirical modelling work is more economic history than economics, because we aren't learning anything fundamental from the exercise. I have some affinity for this interpretation, but it makes this argument more about where the boundaries around "economics" should be.
reply
I guess my experience with the econ field isn't what Austrians experienced when they historically started diverging.
I suspect that most modern economists have a humbler view of modeling than the typical Austrian thinks. The reason they keep making models is because that's what gets published. The modern economist would probably defend it much the same way I would: "We're not saying that the models are accurate for forecasting, or even that believable: but they help us think through a certain issue more rigorously than without it."
You could say praxeology is applicable to many more areas than just catallactics. The Austrians cast a wider net than just historical data moulded into models. As you say, they will use historical models to emphasize a point, though.
Austrians have this negative attitude for good reasons. The models break down and do not work as advertised and are causing a lot of human suffering. Perhaps trusting the Keynesian and MMT experts is not always a good way to go.
reply