pull down to refresh
35 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 7h \ on: What a New Math Breakthrough Means for Economics econ
I wasn't familiar with this conjecture. From the description provided, I'm a little surprised that it was assumed to be true.
None of the examples struck me as particularly controversial. I think everyone knows that macro indicators are imperfect proxies at best and should be taken as suggestive rather than conclusive.
Yes, however, the whole of the theories based on aggregates depend on the whole field being homogeneous. Heterogeneity blows those theories and the metrics and mesurements, as well as the resultant policy prescriptions, out of the water. It makes them much more less than even useless, they distract from reality and cause even more problems in the economy.
reply
Most economists understand that too. It's worth keeping in mind though, that just because a conclusion isn't mathematically certain doesn't mean mean it's wrong either.
The reason mathematicians couldn't think up an example that disproved the conjecture is because the conjecture holds under an enormous range of conditions. Mathematicians are insanely clever and will have thrown a lot at this problem. There's no reason to assume a particular case is in the class that doesn't conform to the conjecture.
reply
Most economists understand that too. It's worth keeping in mind though, that just because a conclusion isn't mathematically certain doesn't mean mean it's wrong either.
Then the question is: Why do they keep on using metrics, measurements and theories that discount this reasoning and, thus, making policy recommendations that are not working? Why would they do that, other than to support their paymasters, the clowns of the state? This is my problem with mathematical, empirical economics.
reply
It’s a very good question and I don’t know the answer. I always found it hard to square.
My sense is that they just don’t know how else to approach these questions that have so much interest, so they do something they know is wrong and hope they find something that’s at least useful.
reply
It’s a very good question and I don’t know the answer. I always found it hard to square.
Try this one on for size: they keep using them because those are the answers the paymaster/clowns are looking for! Like everyone else, the people making the economic analyses and prognostications wants to make a healthy, comfortable living! The best way to do that is to please your masters, isn’t it?
reply