Tyler Cowen on Meta-Science; Noah Smith on economic pessimism; Kling and Mingardi on human evolution and agency; Caplan's "ideological Turing test" tested
“Subsequently, economists have used this model in a variety of ways, not so much because it fit the problem but because it was “there” in the literature.”
I would guess that unless you are at the very top of the hierarchy it is between difficult and impossible to get anyone to take the time to learn and understand a model they aren’t already familiar with. Hence all the questionable applications of things everyone was forced to work through a bunch in first year macro.
In the late 70s thru the 80s, lots of programming was done in Pascal, since so many CS students learned it first, and were able to get it to create stuff that did work.
Economic pessimism seems indicated if there is "a shift in the mix of workers toward more less-skilled, lower-paid workers." It's also likely the case that there are MORE disappointed college grads who, 5 years after graduating, are making 5, 10, 20% less than they expected, over the few big winners making 20, 40, 200% more than they expected.
The winner-take-all network effects means far fewer Big winners and lots more small losers -- who see & hear & read about the few big winners. Maybe 100 grads all expect to be making 100k within 5 years, but 20 make 20% more(120), 10 make 40% more (140) & 4 make 100% more (200) with 1 making 200% more (300) - so these 35 are doing fine, and keeping the average of the group up at 100k, because the other 65 are all doing less well, and yet even thinking that despite being disappointed at 80k or the avg 60k, they themselves are among those doing ok.
"people tend to be very positive about their own financial well-being, moderately positive about their local economy, and negative about the national economy:"
I would have liked to see more granular population deciles of wage changes, the bottom 10% losing some a% (maybe 50%? maybe 30%?), the 20% percentile losing b% (maybe 30? maybe 40?), for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 percentiles (maybe 100% more?) and even the biggest 1% winners of increases. I don't believe it is a Bell curve, but guess it has a big lump of losers where the 40 50 60 percentiles are close and all negative (-2% up to 0%). Maybe such stats already exist, or with quintile or quarters; but I'm not following it so well -- I'm personally fine but think the US might have problems.
Noah Smith references The Atlantic where Derek Thompson writes about confusing US voters who are: "constantly angry about the state of things, but also fundamentally conservative about any change that overturns their “rather happy” life and “at least okay” finances."
These seems somewhat likely, but leaves out the experience that most gov't changes, in practice, make it worse in the areas actually affected, no matter how much virtue is signaled by holding and implementing such luxury beliefs. Like defund the police.
"One phenomenon that interests me about economics is that ideas get taken out of the context in which they were developed." The same phenomenon pervades law, particularly the common law, where rules are tailored to the case at hand. When those rules are cut and pasted from one opinion or brief to the next, heedless of context, their purpose and proper scope can be lost over time.
50-70% can pass the ideological Turing test! Why is this being framed as a bad thing? Given the talk of increasing polarization and different ideological languages, I would have predicted a much worse outcome. Is there actually hope of peace, understanding, and compromise after all?
When was calibration NOT reasonable when the number of theoretical variables is greater than he number of observations? Astrophysics uses it for the same reason that climate modes do.
“Subsequently, economists have used this model in a variety of ways, not so much because it fit the problem but because it was “there” in the literature.”
I would guess that unless you are at the very top of the hierarchy it is between difficult and impossible to get anyone to take the time to learn and understand a model they aren’t already familiar with. Hence all the questionable applications of things everyone was forced to work through a bunch in first year macro.
In the late 70s thru the 80s, lots of programming was done in Pascal, since so many CS students learned it first, and were able to get it to create stuff that did work.
Arnold
Responding to Tyler’s comments on science.
I’ve read somewhere (forgot where) that ‘science’ really isn’t a valid idea.
Why?
There is biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc.. However, what is science ?
I do remember clerk maxwell writing that reality maybe composed like a series of magazine articles, not as one continuous story like a book.
‘Science’ as a word or idea seems just to borrow status from technology/mathematics/ etc., and use it for benefit of other purposes.
As Hayek and others explained, social researchers have physics envy. To their profound detriment.
Thanks
Clay
Economic pessimism seems indicated if there is "a shift in the mix of workers toward more less-skilled, lower-paid workers." It's also likely the case that there are MORE disappointed college grads who, 5 years after graduating, are making 5, 10, 20% less than they expected, over the few big winners making 20, 40, 200% more than they expected.
The winner-take-all network effects means far fewer Big winners and lots more small losers -- who see & hear & read about the few big winners. Maybe 100 grads all expect to be making 100k within 5 years, but 20 make 20% more(120), 10 make 40% more (140) & 4 make 100% more (200) with 1 making 200% more (300) - so these 35 are doing fine, and keeping the average of the group up at 100k, because the other 65 are all doing less well, and yet even thinking that despite being disappointed at 80k or the avg 60k, they themselves are among those doing ok.
"people tend to be very positive about their own financial well-being, moderately positive about their local economy, and negative about the national economy:"
I would have liked to see more granular population deciles of wage changes, the bottom 10% losing some a% (maybe 50%? maybe 30%?), the 20% percentile losing b% (maybe 30? maybe 40?), for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 percentiles (maybe 100% more?) and even the biggest 1% winners of increases. I don't believe it is a Bell curve, but guess it has a big lump of losers where the 40 50 60 percentiles are close and all negative (-2% up to 0%). Maybe such stats already exist, or with quintile or quarters; but I'm not following it so well -- I'm personally fine but think the US might have problems.
Noah Smith references The Atlantic where Derek Thompson writes about confusing US voters who are: "constantly angry about the state of things, but also fundamentally conservative about any change that overturns their “rather happy” life and “at least okay” finances."
These seems somewhat likely, but leaves out the experience that most gov't changes, in practice, make it worse in the areas actually affected, no matter how much virtue is signaled by holding and implementing such luxury beliefs. Like defund the police.
"One phenomenon that interests me about economics is that ideas get taken out of the context in which they were developed." The same phenomenon pervades law, particularly the common law, where rules are tailored to the case at hand. When those rules are cut and pasted from one opinion or brief to the next, heedless of context, their purpose and proper scope can be lost over time.
50-70% can pass the ideological Turing test! Why is this being framed as a bad thing? Given the talk of increasing polarization and different ideological languages, I would have predicted a much worse outcome. Is there actually hope of peace, understanding, and compromise after all?
Smith: We do not have a wage index.
When was calibration NOT reasonable when the number of theoretical variables is greater than he number of observations? Astrophysics uses it for the same reason that climate modes do.