tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post9019550565641048294..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Paul Romer on mathinessNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-45032440237771680172015-05-24T07:06:36.817-04:002015-05-24T07:06:36.817-04:00Vader appears to be trying to figure something out...Vader appears to be trying to figure something out, or in any case do something, without a whole lot of dexterous rigor. I think that way of proceeding is what the image is meant to illustrate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72268260232123287772015-05-23T04:12:46.030-04:002015-05-23T04:12:46.030-04:00Anonymous,
You did not address the bias, and disr...Anonymous,<br /><br />You did not address the bias, and disregard of evidence issues.Anon 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-31375549392924919212015-05-23T04:10:06.595-04:002015-05-23T04:10:06.595-04:00Waste water economics?Waste water economics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52121813308703064422015-05-23T03:51:01.200-04:002015-05-23T03:51:01.200-04:00How about:
Benjo water economists?
Sewage water e...How about:<br /><br />Benjo water economists?<br />Sewage water economists?<br /><br />Run off water economists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-63809546998017714052015-05-21T09:31:39.969-04:002015-05-21T09:31:39.969-04:00Ooh, Richard Serlin explains Neil Wallace! You re...Ooh, Richard Serlin explains Neil Wallace! You really don't have a clue how irrelevant you are.The Hat of the Three-Toed Man-Babynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89553313068467094712015-05-21T07:02:59.699-04:002015-05-21T07:02:59.699-04:00Noah, can you explain the meaning of the image?Noah, can you explain the meaning of the image?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86924802286284741622015-05-21T03:09:18.596-04:002015-05-21T03:09:18.596-04:00I wish I had more time to weigh in on this, before...I wish I had more time to weigh in on this, before it's five minute blog expiration, but I'll say this:<br /><br />1) Romer is criticizing mathiness in economics, not math, which he certainly sees as valuable if applied well.<br /><br />2) With a model, all that is essentially said is, if this stuff is true, then this other stuff is true, or will happen. The model doesn't, in of itself, say this is what will happen in the real world, where the initial if's, or assumptions, are never true completely, and may be extremely untrue.<br /><br />Thus, as I always say, even though I have no name, a model is only as good as its interpretation, to reality. The big problem with Prescott and Lucas and gang, is that they prove something is true in the model and then they assert that it's also true in the real world, where the fantastical assumptions they make are usually comically materially untrue – but hey it makes their libertarian/plutocratic ideology look better, and that's what counts.<br /><br />A model can teach important lessons about the real world, but if it's a good model, and if it's interpreted to reality intelligently and using what we (often painfully obviously) know about the real world, not ignoring any other knowledge we have. <br /><br />One model in particular, which I've actually taken apart and completely understand, is Wallace's 1981 AER. It's often used as "proof" that quantitative easing can't have any effect. To even most economists, it's an impenetrable wall of math, so they can't tell. But, I'm about to have my big post explaining the intuition, which basically shows that the result of "irrelevance" depends on ridiculous assumptions that clearly when they hold as little as they do in the real world mean that quantitative easing, especially large and unconventional, can have a big effect. And this is what the empirical evidence shows. But if you understand the model, you can see right away that it's not going to hold in the real world. It just depends too much on fantastical assumptions that the evidence is comically obvious come nowhere close to holding.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4734982399640783732015-05-21T01:28:58.046-04:002015-05-21T01:28:58.046-04:00Once again, I find myself at a loss trying to reco...Once again, I find myself at a loss trying to reconcile the internet depiction of Lucas as a rigid ideologue with what I actually find when I read him.<br /><br />For example: DeLong says he was anti-imperfect competition because of the Stigler influence. Check out Lucas's 1985 review of Krugman's book (need JSTOR access).<br /><br />http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3808%28199006%2998%3A3%3C664%3ATPAMS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52140198026711661372015-05-20T17:33:15.672-04:002015-05-20T17:33:15.672-04:00To elaborate: IS-LM type of model is sort of like ...To elaborate: IS-LM type of model is sort of like Newtonian physics, which RBC types think is worthless and should be thrown out, while in reality RBC theory is illusion in people's mind but pretending to be "real science".Hidden Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05533174135430259653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33591119603879025152015-05-20T10:50:34.966-04:002015-05-20T10:50:34.966-04:00And repeatedly posting nonsense on the Internet wi...And repeatedly posting nonsense on the Internet will not turn it into sense. Your 2 cents aren't even worth 1.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-967562076601983942015-05-19T22:16:36.136-04:002015-05-19T22:16:36.136-04:00No matter how much fancy math the fresh water type...No matter how much fancy math the fresh water types use in their papers, it's basically political biases wrapped in technicality appearance. That's why the complete disregard of reality and evidence. You can put as much lipsticks on a pig as possible, but it's not gonna turn into a beautiful woman.Hidden Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05533174135430259653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6130254637390691422015-05-19T22:13:15.013-04:002015-05-19T22:13:15.013-04:00I would like to say something about an old post --...I would like to say something about an old post -- on micro-foundations. I think to insist on micro-foundations is like saying if we don't fully understand quarks and string theory, we should throw Newtonian physics out of the window. The fresh water types insist theirs is the truly scientific approach, while in reality, they're anti-science cultists. <br /><br />My 2 cents.Hidden Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05533174135430259653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44825470862016707992015-05-19T19:30:59.715-04:002015-05-19T19:30:59.715-04:00I am wondering if Jean Baudrillard is becoming mor...I am wondering if Jean Baudrillard is becoming more prescient by the day:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard<br />------------------------<br />...His pictures of society portray societies always searching for a sense of meaning—or a "total" understanding of the world—that remains consistently elusive. In contrast to poststructuralists such as Michel Foucault, for whom the formations of knowledge emerge only as the result of relations of power, Baudrillard developed theories in which the excessive, fruitless search for total knowledge lead almost inevitably to a kind of delusion. In Baudrillard's view, the (human) subject may try to understand the (non-human) object, but because the object can only be understood according to what it signifies (and because the process of signification immediately involves a web of other signs from which it is distinguished) this never produces the desired results. The subject, rather, becomes seduced (in the original Latin sense, seducere, to lead away) by the object. He therefore argued that, in the last analysis, a complete understanding of the minutiae of human life is impossible, and when people are seduced into thinking otherwise they become drawn toward a "simulated" version of reality, or, to use one of his neologisms, a state of "hyperreality". This is not to say that the world becomes unreal, but rather that the faster and more comprehensively societies begin to bring reality together into one supposedly coherent picture, the more insecure and unstable it looks and the more fearful societies become.[14] Reality, in this sense, "dies out".[15]<br />-------------------------Doc at the Radar Stationnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6790679925193878672015-05-19T10:21:25.034-04:002015-05-19T10:21:25.034-04:00In Paul Romer's paper on mathiness, he gives m...In Paul Romer's paper on mathiness, he gives mobile phones as an example where increasing returns to scale are very important. But to prove his point, he presents a mathematical model where there are no economies of scale! That is, in his model "surplus scales linearly in [market size]", but he still implies that his model demonstrates strong economies of scale. <br /><br />Perhaps I'm missing something, but Isn't this exactly the mathiness that he's denouncing?<br />Ragouthttp://ragout.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-39093611702489009732015-05-19T04:05:19.358-04:002015-05-19T04:05:19.358-04:00Indeed. Romer criticizes Joan Robinson for academi...Indeed. Romer criticizes Joan Robinson for academic politics when, in fact, she was only making the same argument of mathiness regarding the use of capital that triggered the Cambridge Capital Controversy.Alexander Sebastian Schulzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135338616598357444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38609942287699909802015-05-18T18:40:31.208-04:002015-05-18T18:40:31.208-04:00> empirical growth literature
> growth liter...<em>> empirical growth literature<br />> growth literature<br />> empirical</em>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81144259483684877282015-05-18T18:31:07.850-04:002015-05-18T18:31:07.850-04:00Nice article. This quote in particular stood out:
...Nice article. This quote in particular stood out:<br /><br />"By this account, then, the value of excessive mathiness was that it enabled mediocre junior faculty survive and get promotion [...]"<br /><br /><em>Ahem</em> Williamson <em>ahem</em>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18159579999624312452015-05-18T18:20:18.209-04:002015-05-18T18:20:18.209-04:00The Solow model seems to me like a rare exception ...<em>The Solow model seems to me like a rare exception [...]</em><br /><br />Not sure I follow: the Solow model is just as bullshitty and empirically unsubstantiated as the rest of the literature. But then early on you yourself point out how problematic <em>K</em> is, so maybe I'm reading you wrong...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12711417648428133732015-05-18T12:18:40.628-04:002015-05-18T12:18:40.628-04:00That's interesting. I actually don't follo...That's interesting. I actually don't follow the empirical growth literature at all. Can you send me one or two links to papers about this?Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80571313429250555372015-05-18T10:53:35.420-04:002015-05-18T10:53:35.420-04:00 Ok, I see where. I missed that part above. Som... Ok, I see where. I missed that part above. Sometimes I skip around! Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67607351195359479302015-05-18T10:50:54.607-04:002015-05-18T10:50:54.607-04:00I don't know where Romer criticizes Piketty fo... I don't know where Romer criticizes Piketty for 'mathiness' <br /><br /> Here he actually identifies him as an empirical economist with every right to ignore theory if the mathiness keeps up<br /><br /> "The resignation is why I conjectured that we are stuck in a lemons equilibrium in the market for mathematical theory. Noah’s jaded question–Is the theory of McGrattan-Prescott really any worse than the theory of Solow and Becker?–may be indicative of what many economists feel after years of being bullied by bad theory. And as I note in the paper, this resignation may be why empirically minded economists like Piketty and Zucman stay as far away from theory as possible."<br /><br /> http://paulromer.net/ed-prescott-is-no-robert-solow-no-gary-becker/<br /><br /> IMike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-62881463472186934422015-05-18T10:00:53.479-04:002015-05-18T10:00:53.479-04:00Maybe Romer should be more concerned about the fac...Maybe Romer should be more concerned about the fact that his endogenous growth models are inconsistent with the growth facts and less about other people's work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54170927333393146822015-05-18T09:58:56.835-04:002015-05-18T09:58:56.835-04:00Wouldn't this be solved by anonymous editors?Wouldn't this be solved by anonymous editors? Ramnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6900412759132379962015-05-18T05:27:43.436-04:002015-05-18T05:27:43.436-04:00"To accept the government is sort of acknowle..."To accept the government is sort of acknowledging the imperfections of mathematics to perfectly describe the economy."<br /><br />No its not. The problem is not with mathematics as such but with the models. If that wasn't the case Romer wouldn't have anything to complain about.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20592746747384547422015-05-18T03:08:44.423-04:002015-05-18T03:08:44.423-04:00Mathiness is Next to Growthiness
http://econospeak...Mathiness is Next to Growthiness<br />http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2015/05/mathiness-and-growthiness.html<br /><br />It is bracing to see the intense (dare I call it petulant?) indignation expressed by Paul Romer toward papers by McGrattan and Prescott, Lucas and Moll, and Boldrin and Levine. He goes so far as to confess "embarrassment" that his suggestions as discussant were acknowledged by McGrattan and Prescott in an earlier version of their paper. He complains of "a lemons equilibrium in the market for mathematical theory" and laments "years of being bullied by bad theory."<br /><br />Superficially, Romer's diatribe against mathiness may recall Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen's principled objection to unhinged "arithmomorphism." But any perceived resemblance is purely coincidental.<br /><br />Georgescu-Roegen was described in a critical note as "the methodological conscience of the profession for over a decade" whose mathematical renown rendered "his closely argued objections to the domination by mathematical methods... all the more welcome." Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com