Yes Clarence, give an example of waaaay too much regulation. Start by category. Animal, vegetable, mineral.I'm not in favor of abolishing all regulation. If you are working on a nuclear power plant obviously there will need to be safeguards. But right now there is waaaay too much regulation.
There are experimental designs, semi-experimental designs, game theory, and numerous statistical techniques. Furthermore, numerous implications of orthodox theory have been tested and shows to work as predicted, and implications of those implications have done the same. Most of the current debates in economics are on the margins (or about application of economic theories to specific cases).Originally Posted by Unheard Of
Hope is the denial of reality
I can see how you could test small scale economics through games, but that doesn't feel like it would be adequate to test macro economic theories. I wouldn't give conclusions drawn from games too much weight. It seems unlikely that the people involved would treat the decisions in the game as seriously as real life. I'm sure that economists do the best they can, but the more I think about it the less likely it seems that economics could achieve the same level of experimental proof that is necessary in modern medicine (you shouldn't interpret this as a ringing endorsement of modern medicine). This is a a pity, as the idea of evidence-based economics is quite attractive.
Homeopaths and acupuncturists are similarly convinced as to the validity of their field. Why wouldn't they be - all the other acupuncturists and homeopaths agree with them. The confidence of the practitioners and fashions moving their discipline are both immaterial. The quality of the evidence is all that counts.Furthermore, numerous implications of orthodox theory have been tested and shows to work as predicted, and implications of those implications have done the same. Most of the current debates in economics are on the margins (or about application of economic theories to specific cases).
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Microeconomics has far more evidence and theory in its favor than macroeconomics for the reason you mention. Coincidentally, that's an argument against Keynesianism. Most insights of orthodox economics is from micro; most insights of Keynesianism is from macro. It's actually why many economists are dubious of any neo-Keynesian findings.
Regarding your medicine point, I think the opposite is true. We know far more about how people respond to economic incentives than we do about how the human body responds to drugs. There's far less variability in the former. For the most part, we also know the conditions under which people are less likely to respond to economic incentives. There's an entire field, Behavioral Economics, that is concerned entirely with this question.
That would be equating orthodox economics (the theory) with economics (the field). There is no inherent reason why economists should seek to defend orthodox economics. In fact, an economist can make a career out of showing why some specific aspects of orthodox economics is wrong (e.g. Krugman and Stiglitz). And yet, a vast majority of the work in the field corroborates and extends existing theory/empirics.Homeopaths and acupuncturists are similarly convinced as to the validity of their field. Why wouldn't they be - all the other acupuncturists and homeopaths agree with them. The confidence of the practitioners and fashions moving their discipline are both immaterial. The quality of the evidence is all that counts.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's a fair point. I imagine it's even more difficult to test theories at that scale - it's not as if you can easily run experiments on the world wide economy.
I see what you mean - it's extraordinarily difficult to see precisely what's going on within a human, but my point was more that we have a good framework to compare the effectiveness of an intervention with an alternative (be it another treatment, a placebo, or doing nothing). This doesn't require an understanding of the theory, since it only considers the effectiveness. It would be nice to have interventions of proven effectiveness for economics.Regarding your medicine point, I think the opposite is true. We know far more about how people respond to economic incentives than we do about how the human body responds to drugs. There's far less variability in the former. For the most part, we also know the conditions under which people are less likely to respond to economic incentives. There's an entire field, Behavioral Economics, that is concerned entirely with this question.
You could probably model the career benefits of backing the orthodoxy vs. taking a maverick position. I think the key thing here is that there have been times where fields have come to a fairly homogeneous view and it has turned out to be wrong. From what little you've said, I think the analogy to acupuncture & homeopathy is fair. In both cases we have people acting in good faith, who have attempted to test their theories. In the case of homeopathy* much of the research was flawed, for no reason beyond sloppy practice. Economics is different, as large parts of it cannot be tested with a high level of rigour. I would put more faith in the advice of an economist than a homeopath, but not much.That would be equating orthodox economics (the theory) with economics (the field). There is no inherent reason why economists should seek to defend orthodox economics. In fact, an economist can make a career out of showing why some specific aspects of orthodox economics is wrong (e.g. Krugman and Stiglitz). And yet, a vast majority of the work in the field corroborates and extends existing theory/empirics.
* you may note I'm not mentioning acupuncture here. The reasons for poor quality research here seem to be a little more political. I'd recommend Trick or Treatment if you're interested; it is responsible for my current monomania on scientific rigour and the importance of a sound evidence base.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Loki. there is no such thing as "orthodox" economics. You're referring to Friedmanism. While it is currently ascendant, and its star has been rising for 30 years, many would argue that its tide is now receding, particularly when such luminaries as Greenspan have recanted and advocate a more moderate approach. {aside: how about that? Another instance of moderation probably being far better than an extreme position.}
I thought Loki meant academic economics vs applied economics. But then, I got a bit confused when he compared economics to medicine like this
Not sure if he meant Behavioral Economists measure pupil dilation, heart rate, blood pressure, skin temperature, urine output, cortisol or endorphin concentrations like physiologists do in response to chemical drugs, or what.Regarding your medicine point, I think the opposite is true. We know far more about how people respond to economic incentives than we do about how the human body responds to drugs. There's far less variability in the former. For the most part, we also know the conditions under which people are less likely to respond to economic incentives. There's an entire field, Behavioral Economics, that is concerned entirely with this question.
He's also dead wrong, because most macro economists assume a rational consumer in their models, even though their own micro colleagues have shown that virtually no consumers are anywhere near rational (nor can they come close to it in a modern economy).
Macro is closer to religion than it is to science. Which is why otherwise smart people back extreme, dogmatic positions that are entirely indefensible. Friedmanism IS Loki's religion.
OK.Yes Clarence, give an example of waaaay too much regulation. Start by category. Animal, vegetable, mineral.
Endangered Species act protecting stupid rats. Its a fraken rat, who the hell cares?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...15/00734.shtml
And vegetables? How about our Ethanol Regulations? Are you a fan of states mandating a part of the gasoline you buy must be made up of Ethanol? Sounds pretty intrusive to me. Not to mention all the problems subsidizing Ethanol has caused...Smith told the harrowing story of "Cindy and Andy Domenigoni, fifth generation farmers in Riverside County, California who were working a 3,200-acre property first farmed by Andy's great-great grandfather who settled the valley (that is now named after him) in 1879. Their farm has also been home to the Stephens' kangaroo rat, a species the government has listed as endangered since 1988. In compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has prohibited the Domenigonis from farming 800 tillable acres that are considered prime rat habitat.
"In 1990, as the Domenigonis were preparing to begin plowing their fields, FWS law enforcement agents and biologists ordered them to stop and warned them that disking their fields would constitute a "taking" of the endangered Stephens' kangaroo rat and they would be arrested. Furthermore, they were cautioned that if they subsequently disked their fields, they would face impoundment of their farm equipment and a year in jail or a $50,000 fine – or both – for each and every act of "taking" an individual rat.
And as the FWS considers a taking to mean harassment, harm, digging up a burrow, or plowing under the grass and plants whose seeds the rat eats – almost any action a bureaucrat can conceive of as affecting the rat in any way – the Domenigonis could have been facing life sentences for plowing their 800 acres. (That is what the environmentalists refer to as "sustainable development.")
Smith reported that the Domenigonis "lost $75,000 in foregone crops each season for the past four years – a total loss of $300,000 in gross income – because of the FWS prohibition. They have also incurred another $100,000 in biological consulting fees, legal fees, and associated costs in fighting this regulatory taking of their property and of their livelihood. In addition, they have been prevented from raising crops on other farmland that they leased from local landowners.
Ironically, on Nov. 1, 1993, shortly after the devastating Southern California fires destroyed thousands of acres of k-rat habitat – as well as human habitat and homes – FWS biologist John Bradley authorized the Domenigonis to plow their fields, having determined that the endangered rats no longer lived in the area and hadn't for some time before the fire.
Because the land hadn't been plowed in order to protect the rats, the foliage had grown too thick for the rats to live there and they were forced to leave.
Thus, the ESA regulations directly caused an uncompensated loss to the Domenigonis of close to half a million dollars. Their land had undergone a de facto nationalization by the federal government; they could derive no economic return from it. Yet they were still required to pay property taxes on land deprived of all economic value by government fiat.
The brutal realities of the ESA were exhibited to the entire nation on ABC's "20/20" television news program of Friday, Nov. 19, 1993 (hosted by Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters and reported by John Stossel), where Ms. Anna Klimko, who obeyed the federal government's orders not to create a firebreak by plowing the brush in front of her house because doing so would damage the k-rat's burrows and therefore harm the k-rat, was kneeling in the ashes of her completely destroyed home and dreams, digging for possible remnants of family keepsakes.
Ms. Klimko looked up with tears streaming down her face and asked, "In three minutes, my house was fully consumed in flames and in seven minutes, everything was gone. For what? A rat?"
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/ne..._id=9043?print
Senate Bill 293 requires nearly all gasoline in the state to be blended with 10 percent ethanol
Except plenty of factors intervene between the administration of the drug and the measurement of its effects. And of course you have no real explanation as to why a drug works on some people and not others (even assuming it's more effective than placebo). These problems are easier to deal with in economics than an clinical science.
Quite frankly, your standards of "rigor" are capricious and rule out the effectiveness of social sciences a priori, with the justification for these standards being weak at best. You rely on studies that have little to none external validity, claim success when a drug has results even when you had no a priori rationale for expecting those results, and can rarely properly measure compliance. I don't see how these problems are any less severe than ones common in economics. Furthermore, the fields of game theory and statistics exist for a reason. Dismissing their results out of hand is ridiculous.You could probably model the career benefits of backing the orthodoxy vs. taking a maverick position. I think the key thing here is that there have been times where fields have come to a fairly homogeneous view and it has turned out to be wrong. From what little you've said, I think the analogy to acupuncture & homeopathy is fair. In both cases we have people acting in good faith, who have attempted to test their theories. In the case of homeopathy* much of the research was flawed, for no reason beyond sloppy practice. Economics is different, as large parts of it cannot be tested with a high level of rigour. I would put more faith in the advice of an economist than a homeopath, but not much.
I think it would be helpful if you read articles in actual economics journals before coming to these conclusions. The politicized part of economics is the type you see in newspapers and a handful of policy journals, not in the major journals in the field. Positions in economics debates don't correlate as highly with political positions as you seem to think. It's the application of economics (the equivalent of engineering) that's prone to ideological disputes.* you may note I'm not mentioning acupuncture here. The reasons for poor quality research here seem to be a little more political. I'd recommend Trick or Treatment if you're interested; it is responsible for my current monomania on scientific rigour and the importance of a sound evidence base.
Hope is the denial of reality
Frankly, Frank, that's a story highlighting Tax code and Fire management conflicts, more than an Endangered Species Act problem.OK.
Endangered Species act protecting stupid rats. Its a fraken rat, who the hell cares?
There's a difference between intrusive and ineffective regulation. Regulation doesn't have to be a dirty word. But yeah, I like knowing the corn I eat isn't animal feed grade. I like knowing that's corn ethanol in my gas tank, and not home brewed moonshine.And vegetables? How about our Ethanol Regulations? Are you a fan of states mandating a part of the gasoline you buy must be made up of Ethanol? Sounds pretty intrusive to me. Not to mention all the problems subsidizing Ethanol has caused...
Subsidies by industry can also be blamed on their powerful lobbyists, and ear marks that congress loves, bringing the bacon home to their state. Rather like Texas and the oil industry. But that'd be Mineral....
They were not allowed to manage their land to prevent these types of fires because it was ruled as the natural habitat of that stupid rat.Frankly, Frank, that's a story highlighting Tax code and Fire management conflicts, more than an Endangered Species Act problem.
Do you like a requirement that your gas station has to have an ethanol blend?But yeah, I like knowing the corn I eat isn't animal feed grade. I like knowing that's corn ethanol in my gas tank, and not home brewed moonshine.
The sky is falling!
I don't live in Montana, Maurice.Do you like a requirement that your gas station has to have an ethanol blend?
The reality is, state and federal regulations are often at odds. You say there's waaaay too much regulation, but disorganization between fragmented agencies is the problem. Because some people don't like centralized federal "interference" of any kind, especially if science is involved.
So...yer purposefully missing the point...while purposefully trolling...and have yet to notice it's not changing Lewk's posting style.
This makes you superior how?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Oh, I get his point. Waaay too much regulation, but some is needed, he said. Pretty much everyone says that, it sounds like a campaign motto. Just asking for more specifics than an 8 yr old article about the kangaroo rat and FWS. Or a Montana bill pushing renewable energy (with some corn ethanol mandates).
Yeah, I notice he still snips out things he doesn't want to answer, and still won't quote names. What's it to you how he and I post to each other?
This makes you superior how?
Of course, that isn't the purpose of that sort of study. Obviously you'd expect a whole raft of other work to explore how things work.
Don't get me wrong, I don't propose that we should ignore work that doesn't come up to some arbitrary standard of rigour, merely that we should give weight to results according to the rigour in with which they were gathered. I'm also not saying that medical science is perfect - that would be silly. While it might have a greater potential for well designed experiments, it doesn't mean that it always reaches that potential.Quite frankly, your standards of "rigor" are capricious and rule out the effectiveness of social sciences a priori, with the justification for these standards being weak at best.
So you position seems to be that they exist so they must be useful? That seems like such a weak argument that I must have mis-understood you. Anyway, I don't deny that they are useful. Game theory has its place, but only a fool would base decisions on its results without reference to the real world. Statistics are clearly essential to any meaningful analysis and it's unfortunate that you think that I wish to dismiss it.Furthermore, the fields of game theory and statistics exist for a reason. Dismissing their results out of hand is ridiculous.
I sympathise - science journalism does a terrible job of explaining the stories of the day to the layman, and I expect that the same is true for economics. I don't doubt that my understanding of the subtleties of your field is abominably poor. From what you've said, it seems that the ideological disputes are what I have a problem with. The various policies are laid out like treatments for a sick man, with each faction having their own preferred remedy. Each is confident that their cure is the best, but no real evidence is ever presented, only rhetoric. The factions seem to trot out the same 'treatments' no matter the problem that they claim to be solving. They resemble bloodletters and homeopaths more than any rational discipline, and should be treated accordingly.I think it would be helpful if you read articles in actual economics journals before coming to these conclusions. The politicized part of economics is the type you see in newspapers and a handful of policy journals, not in the major journals in the field. Positions in economics debates don't correlate as highly with political positions as you seem to think. It's the application of economics (the equivalent of engineering) that's prone to ideological disputes.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Oh really, this is just about how he and you are posting to each other?
To quote another user here...'Natch'
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
We're also discussing his tangents, loosely defined as 'Positive Trends'. This thread began about legalizing weed, turned into GOP / Tea Party platforms, then Regulations. None are monolithic, any more than we're all a bunch of nameless posters. Consider it a two-fer, one on substance and one on style.
Contribution noted.To quote another user here...'Natch'
When asked about over regulation, the best Lewk could come up with is a lacking understanding of ecosystems and a dislike of rats?
and the thread continues? Really?
I don't disagree. Which is why I point to similar results obtained using vastly different methods. Sure, one observational study isn't nearly as definitive as one multi-city experimental design, but when you get a hundred, along with a dozens of formal and semi-experimental results, I really don't think we should be less any confident in the "treatment".
I would make the inverse argument. If you can't provide a formal argument for why your theory works, there's something wrong with your theory. Game theory doesn't force you to make strict rationality assumptions. It does force you to demonstrate how each part of your story relate. I'd be weary of any statistical or experimental result that can't be modeled properly. After all, even experiments have margins of error, which are made worse by likely measurement or other errors.So you position seems to be that they exist so they must be useful? That seems like such a weak argument that I must have mis-understood you. Anyway, I don't deny that they are useful. Game theory has its place, but only a fool would base decisions on its results without reference to the real world. Statistics are clearly essential to any meaningful analysis and it's unfortunate that you think that I wish to dismiss it.
For a clinical equivalent, imagine every person takes 20 different drugs. You tell that person to take another drug for problem x, and you are confident that the drug helps with problem x. But you have only a vague idea about how that drug interacts with the other 20 drugs, or whether it might even do more harm than good given the risk the other 20 drugs pose in terms of uncertainty. That's basically economics. Not my field by the way; I do poli sci.I sympathise - science journalism does a terrible job of explaining the stories of the day to the layman, and I expect that the same is true for economics. I don't doubt that my understanding of the subtleties of your field is abominably poor. From what you've said, it seems that the ideological disputes are what I have a problem with. The various policies are laid out like treatments for a sick man, with each faction having their own preferred remedy. Each is confident that their cure is the best, but no real evidence is ever presented, only rhetoric. The factions seem to trot out the same 'treatments' no matter the problem that they claim to be solving. They resemble bloodletters and homeopaths more than any rational discipline, and should be treated accordingly.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote