pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Aug \ parent \ on: What a New Math Breakthrough Means for Economics econ
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.
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
That may be the ultimate cause but I can tell you from the inside that it’s not how they’re thinking about it.
It’s more like wanting to work within the consensus of the field because that’s what gets published and publishing is how we advance.
Oftentimes, what macroeconomists are working on is relaxing the assumptions of those unrealistic models in ways we would approve of. They just aren’t willing to abandon them entirely.
reply
It’s more like wanting to work within the consensus of the field because that’s what gets published and publishing is how we advance.
Isn’t that just a way of saying that there is more money if you knuckle under to the reigning paradigm? The more that you can publish, the more you can advance on the academic totem pole, the more you advance the more money you can rake in.
Oftentimes, what macroeconomists are working on is relaxing the assumptions of those unrealistic models in ways we would approve of. They just aren’t willing to abandon them entirely.
Working on making the impossible possible seems to be a waste of time to me. However, for them it is not a waste of time but a way to appease their ultimate employers, the state clowns.
reply
I don’t disagree with any of that. My point is just that they aren’t as cynically calculating about it. There are layers of rationalization.
reply
There are layers of rationalization.
Yeah, that’s the problem, too many layers of rationalizations to cover up the raw truth of the matter. Unfortunately, there are complications for other people when their rationalized theories and models get turned into policy prescriptions for the rest of us through the power of the Central Banks or the state.
reply