pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 20h \ parent \ on: Are Pro-Natalists the Real Malthusians? econ
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.
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."
reply
Ahhhhhhh …. Yes! They are getting paid to research and publish those models by the state, mostly. You are saying that is the reason besides more rigorous thinking for the models? OK, that is reasonable. The accuracy of the models is the unreasonable part of the deal, though. They seem to breakdown at their limits all the time.
reply
By the way, I'm not saying that modern economists are humble. Far from it, and often they're way too confident about their knowledge of the economy.
But I don't think the reason for their overconfidence is because they believe the models per se. I think it's just plain old human nature: "I'm the expert and you're not; This is what all the other experts believe; Holding this belief is what will keep me looking smart among my peers; etc"
reply
Yes, expertise in a given area trumps all, doesn’t it. Except when other experts say differently. But, these experts are backed by state approval, aren’t they?
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.
reply
Part of the disconnect here is probably that economics has come to include pretty much all of what Mises referred to as praxeology, but in his day it only encompassed what he called catallactics.
reply
Perhaps, it comes down to trying to make universal unified field theory of voluntary and involuntary exchange. Deals, contracts and agreements go quite differently when there is a gun to somebody’s head, don’t they?
reply
While recognized as an important distinction, the mainstream seldom takes that into account.
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