Economic Culture Wars

[phk]

I agree mostly in spirit with Krugman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I notice that Krugman doesn't actually deal seriously with Kuttner's argument or indeed tell us what it is - he just dismisses it as a product of a "literary intellectuals". Oh and not bloody C.P. Snow again, that man was basically a hack.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, for once that I take time to read a long article in English on the economics board of this forum, because the title was appealing, and because my eyes afforded it, there isn't the slightest argument in all these lines to make his point. All along the lines the author describe a situation, period, he doesn't mind to provide evidence of it.

Also, amusing that evolution comes here, haha, biology and economics.

Also, the guy should figure out that focusing on mathematical models without being able to put words on what the hell was happening has recently put the global economy in a weird situation.

And also, best scientists have been those who have been the most able to describe, synthesize, and put in words to make understand to others what their work was about, and the explanations of their results.

You should always pay attention to stuffs you can't word.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Economics can't be a science like biology or chemistry because there are too many variables in reality and lab-like research can not recreate those variables (so many of which are actually important in the human decision making process and are different for different people) in any detail and is likely to be skewed anyway by the impact of observation and that people act differently in an 'experiment'.

Tbh, in Economics as in all social sciences we really don't know where to begin.

[ag]

On the right we have some of the same problems w/ the Austrians

[Beet]

This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.

In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.

It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.

In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.

It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

[phk]

This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.

In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.

It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

Krugman isn't trying to say Biology = Economics.

Rather the conclusion that Krugman comes to is that:
Math avoidance => Leads to shallow thinking in Economics (as well as Biology).

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.

In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.

It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

Krugman isn't trying to say Biology = Economics. Rather the conclusion that Krugman comes to is that:

Math avoidance => Leads to shallow thinking.

Outside of the fact that there isn't argument to make his point, just affirmations, and that evolutionary biology can be easily used as Beet said because this field is up to a lot of debates in the scientific community, it just made me laugh to find once again biology side by side with economics to try to make a point, the point of this article is:

Word avoidance => Not a problem, some things don't need word.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

While I admit that Maths is academically and logically rigorous in a way that almost no other academic disclipine is, that does not imply that its relative abscene from economics would make it shallower. Any more than any other social science disclipine would be made 'deeper' (whatever that means) by having more maths. The reason why Anthropologists rarely use complex maths is not shallowness, but because its not relevant in any way to what is being studied.

As Krugman points out himself 40-50 years ago economics was less maths-intensive, did that make it much more wrong? The evidence around us suggests not.

It is interesting though the way he draws parallels with evolutionary biology, given that while both can get at general truths both can be very blockheaded when dealing with the reality of human life as it is now (*cue autorant on the abuses of sociobiology*). Anyway it is not as if studying "three mutually catalytic chemicals" is the same thing as studying international trade or wage and price agreements. The reactions of Catalyic chemicals I suppose don't change much, so we can study them in a quasi-platonic way assuming (ignoring Hume) that the behaviours of each 'specimen' (looking for more scientific word? Bah! I hate chemistry) of the chemical studied is like or nearly like every other specimen of the same chemical. Water always evaporates at 100 degrees Celsisus at sea level (as so far tested). International trade on the other hand...

[phk]

This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.

In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.

It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

Krugman isn't trying to say Biology = Economics. Rather the conclusion that Krugman comes to is that:

Math avoidance => Leads to shallow thinking.

Outside of the fact that there isn't argument to make his point, just affirmations, and that evolutionary biology can be easily used as Beet said because this field is up to a lot of debates in the scientific community, it just made me laugh to find once again biology side by side with economics to try to make a point, the point of this article is:

Word avoidance => Not a problem, some things don't need word.

Well in general if one looks at the history of Economic thought. Assertions in Economics that were devoid of mathematical logic or reasoning normally ended up saying something wrong about the Economic concept they wanted to initially analyze. If you give your assertion more intellectual underpinnings. It will more or less be better than before.

People need as many tools to solve as many problems as possible. In Economics, Math is one of them. There are computational tools to use when the Math is too cumbersome or inefficient (such as running regressions on a hundred variables at once) and then there is also simple written English.

Some are even trying to use experiments in Neuroscience to analyze how humans behave when making economic decisions to see what parts of the brain are more active when one is gambling for example. This I think though is not Economics but more likely is just fine Neuroscience.  

Regardless its best to have as many tools as possible to analyze any particular given situation or problem.

As implied in the article. I could write 10 pages on production functions and the nature of their scale properties. But I would much rather do 1 page of calculus and algebra and get it over with. I would kill less trees in the process too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Economics started changing from a mere philosophy to applying mathematical techniques at around the 1930s, I believe. This occurred to the degree of where Applied Mathematicians and Topologists (notice not Economists) began to discuss economic problems as a means to advance the state of pure math.

I think even than there are still fundamental ideas in economics that mathematics has allowed to set in stone (some even regardless if agents are assumed to be fully rational utility maximizers, while some ideas must still use this assumption).

Examples include:
The marginal cost will always be the partial derivative with respect to quantity of the cost function.
GDP is still C + I + G + X.
The formula for calculating the value of a bond will always be the same.
Increasing government spending will shift the IS curve to the right, all things held equal.
Econometrics's Central Limit Theorem is still as valid as it was earlier.
A project with an NPV > 0 is profitable (regardless if a firm can actually undertake the project given credit constraints).
People will still use the Dickey-Fuller test to test for unit roots in time series data.
The method for calculating optimal by catch for fisherman with legal/environmental constraints will still be the same.

Than there's where the traditional avenues of Math doesn't always work (like explaining the Allais Paradox in Expected Utility Theory) or explaining the problem of learning in games (of which level-k thinking seeks to address). Or the problem of people discounting future streams of utility improperly (of which hyperbolic discounting seeks to address).

But I'm an advocate for modifying or relaxing original axioms (to take into account more expected human behavior) and theory for exceptions in certain areas. I did identify as a Behavioralist in the initial labels game that people played on here at one point.

I do so right here. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=106572.msg2279145#msg2279145

[ag]

Unlike the rest of you guys, I believe, I teach econ. So, let me tell a story from personal experience

At one point in time I had to teach a certain class for which there are two common textbooks (there are more, but these were the ones I considered) at the intermediate level (i.e., almost without math). One seemed to be perfect: a good selection of topics, reasonable course outline, wonderful. I tried teaching - and I couldn't. The text made no sense! When I was merely reading it, it all seemed nice enough - but when I tried to explain the logic of it, I simply couldn't do it, even to myself. In fact, more often than not, even when I agreed w/ the conclusion, I just could see that the argument in the book was either outright wrong, or missing important steps and assumptions.

The next year I took another book. It seemed, on the first reading, somewhat sloppy. The outline was not what I would use. But teaching from it was a piece of cake! Even when the author made mistakes (and there were places), identifying and fixing those was easy. The trick: this book was a translation from math into English. I could quickly translate it back, understand the logic of it and explain it. The key assumptions were clear (the author was forced by the requirements of the math language, in which he was thinking, to state them). It was an outright pleasure.

So, what's the lesson? We don't use math in economics to "look more scientific". We use it, because it disciplines. Yes, there are people who can see through sloppy logic of an English argument. But, in my experience, such people are few and far in between. It is much easier to do this in math. So, if somebody is refusing to use math he is, probably, doing it because he is trying to cheat you: the cheating is so much harder to detect in words

[phk]

Which Micro books ag?

I used Perloff in Undergrad Micro. I found it a bit too chatty.

[ag]

Which Micro books ag?

I used Perloff in Undergrad Micro. I found it a bit too chatty.

These were public finance

I don't teach principles of any sort, so I don't know what books are now on the market. For intermediate, they use Nicholson here. Haven't tried it recently, but it seems ok. I normally teach advanced micro - they don't have an analog in the US at the undergrad level. So, for experience with intermediate-level texts I have to wait for rare occasions when I have to do PF

[phk]

Which Micro books ag?

I used Perloff in Undergrad Micro. I found it a bit too chatty.

These were public finance

I don't teach principles of any sort, so I don't know what books are now on the market. For intermediate, they use Nicholson here. Haven't tried it recently, but it seems ok. I normally teach advanced micro - they don't have an analog in the US at the undergrad level. So, for experience with intermediate-level texts I have to wait for rare occasions when I have to do PF

Nichols is better than Perloff. It seems more straight to the point and demonstrates more examples.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Krugman is (or rather was; I worked out it was written some time ago from the reference to Galbraith being both alive and active) using an old trick here: rather than actually dealing with the opposing point of view, he repeats his own opinion in such a way that it looks as though he's writing a refutation when it's actually nothing of the sort. So long as the conclusion is fierce enough, it's quite easy to get away with. I've seen better examples of the trick.

[phk]

Krugman is (or rather was; I worked out it was written some time ago from the reference to Galbraith being both alive and active) using an old trick here: rather than actually dealing with the opposing point of view, he repeats his own opinion in such a way that it looks as though he's writing a refutation when it's actually nothing of the sort. So long as the conclusion is fierce enough, it's quite easy to get away with. I've seen better examples of the trick.

Agree somewhat. Krugman should have given some concrete examples where people went wrong without using Math in analyzing Economics. He doesn't discount using written English as a tool though.

[Beet]

If the point of this article is just that "math is not totally and completely useless and at times is not totally and completely useless", I'll have to declare this article the world's most profound ever written /snark

[ag]

If the point of this article is just that "math is not totally and completely useless and at times is not totally and completely useless", I'll have to declare this article the world's most profound ever written /snark

No, the point of this article is that if a guy/gal is refusing to use math s/he is, probably, trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Now, he is to polite to say this outright, but, basically, that's the point