Economics is a Very Dangerous SciencesteemCreated with Sketch.

in #economics8 years ago (edited)

Economics is a very dangerous science precisely because it empowers smart people with complex tools to make policy prescriptions that often end up imposed on everyone. Economists invoke the mathematics of theoretical physics alongside complex econometrics in hope of better understanding human nature and our countless interactions. 

The problem is that human nature is not neatly explained with mathematics. We are complex organisms whose interactions exponentiate the level of complexity, and we're dynamically evolving in preferences, opportunities, behaviors, etc. 

Another problem is that economists often use their credentials to extrapolate beyond their expertise. Just look at Paul Krugman's NY Times column to see this in the nauseating extreme. Just because you can work through a math proof that invokes the hyperplane separation theorem does not in any way qualify you to govern others, or recommend prescriptions for governance. 

Alex Tabarrok posted an excellent article today on Marginal Revolution rebutting the lament of Marshall Steinbaum and Bernard Weisberger that the American Economic Association is no longer a radical, progressive force. The rebuttal points out that when economists have been "radical" and "progressive" in the past they have argued vociferously against free markets (a.k.a. freedom), and argued for militarism, racism, and eugenics. 

One of the American Economic Review's first published articles was Frederick Hoffman’s "Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro," which disgustingly concludes with:

Intercourse with the white race must absolutely cease and race purity must be insisted upon in marriage as well as outside of it. Together with a higher morality will come a greater degree of economic efficiency, and the predominating trait of the white race, the virtue of thrift, will follow as a natural consequence of the mastery by the colored race of its own conditions...

and...

All the facts brought together in this work prove that the colored population is gradually parting with the virtues and the moderate degree of economic efficiency developed under the regime of slavery. All the facts prove that a low standard of sexual morality is the main and underlying cause of the low and anti-social condition of the race at the present time. All the facts prove that education, philanthropy and religion have failed to develop a higher appreciation of the stern and uncompromising virtues of the Aryan race. The conclusion is warranted that it is merely a question of time when the actual downward course, that is, a decrease in the population, will take place. In the meantime, however, the presence of the colored population is a serious hindrance to the economic progress of the white race.

I'll add that economists have also argued for communism, fascism, and other authoritarian controls of economic life. 

Conclusion

The main takeaway from this short expose of out-of-control economists is not to reject economics, as a whole, as is becoming increasingly popular. The study of human behavior, incentives, and complex interactions in markets should continue; there have been tremendously positive and insightful advancements in knowledge. 

For the non-economist public, my message is that you should take policy prescriptions from the profession with a grain of salt. Be skeptical and realize that there are always deal-breaker underlying assumptions to any theory, and every model is always wrong (but some are useful!). Econometrics is a powerful tool set, but remember that the results are generalizations on averages that likely don't uniformly apply to everyone in the same way that gravitational fields do. 

To economists, remember that humility is a virtue! Be aware of biases in your own cognitive abilities, one of which will likely be a proclivity to favor models and explanations that have "closed form solutions" that make you feel good for understanding something that dazzles the layman. Beware of non sequiturs, extrapolating beyond your samples, and allowing your insights to translate into policies that can strip human beings of their fundamental rights. 

What are your thoughts? 

If you like this post, please upvote, resteem, or share below! Please check out my other articles and follow @finpunk to keep in touch with future content.

Rob Viglione is a PhD Candidate in Finance @UofSC with research interests in cryptofinance, asset pricing, and innovation. He is a former physicist, mercenary mathematician, and military officer with experience in satellite radar, space launch vehicles, and combat support intelligence. Currently a Principal at Key Force Consulting, LLC, a start-up consulting group in North Carolina, and Head of U.S. & Canada Ambassadors @BlockPay, Rob holds an MBA in Finance & Marketing and the PMP certification. He is a passionate libertarian who advocates peace, freedom, and respect for individual life.  


Image source: http://quotesgram.com/economists-quotes/

Sort:  

are always deal-breaker underlying assumptions to any theory, and every model is always wrong (but some are useful!).

Common sense when you think about it. Beware when they start talking Silver Bullet.

I enjoyed your point of view, but argue that no credible economist ever favored Marxism or communism. They're just silly theories (more probably hypotheses) that any economist can easily see past. Keynes was a hack and doesn't deserve a footnote in history (like his hero Marx). If you read Adam Smith, there isn't a single equation in the whole book (Wealth of Nations). Economics isn't about numbers, it's about how people organize themselves to see that certain basic needs are met. Like all pseudo-sciences, economics has adopted math to give the appearance of legitimacy- tragic! And, I'm an economist.

I vaguely remember so-called economists like Galbraith and another one who praised the USSR "achievements" in development right before it collapsed...

And yes, economics is about human action, not numbers. You should be more exact and say that NEOCLASSICAL economics is a pseudo-science. I'm still traumatized by my miserable failure of that macro test where I had to mindlessly (I didn't) remember an integral equation about temporal preferences

I can relate but, Thank God, school is far in the rear-view now. What I find most useful when analyzing economic growth is a venn diagram. I look at everything in terms of an interactive relationship between three components and how they support one another- political, social and economic. I look for variables/indicators within all three spheres and if/how they maintain a dynamic equilibrium...from an historical perspective. It's an incredible amount of work, but almost always accurate. I did it when NAFTA was being debated comparing the two "NAFTA's" and was able to predict a mass migration North.

Yes, exactly...economists in the 20s and 30s, especially, praised the "achievements" of communism. Some lamented that there was no way market economies could keep up with such an organized system that set national priorities and mobilized all resources to achieve them. Hilarious and sad in retrospect!

I share your cringe factor re: macro!

I remember a political-economy class given by a former bureaucrat. He had such contempt for freedom that he told be go "get down from Mount Pelerin" in the first draft for a final essay. It ended up with at most 1/4 government praise and 3/4 near-anarchist stuff; I ended up with A+ nonetheless for the class.

Wow, it's sad when educators let their ideology bleed into the classroom. However, i certainly understand how easy it is to let that happen!

As you can probably tell by now, i have a bias towards freedom and human dignity, so it's hard not to let them come through when i teach. Still, i try to be as unbiased as possible, agnostic on the surface, and encourage students to think for themselves. I'd NEVER consider dinging someone's grade for disagreeing on a principle.

Then I salute your integrity. That's probably why I could never become a teacher: not only are my pedagogical talents very limited, but I don't think I could "objectively" grade a socialist paper, lest it would include an "interview" afterwards to see if the students' arguments can face intense scrutiny

I agree with the "no credible" economist point. Plenty of them had PhDs, published in leading economic journals, and were university professors. And also agree with the math. the tools are extremely useful, especially the stats, just need to keep conclusions within scope and not over extrapolate.

Amen! Some of the most incredibly stupid people I have ever met have had Ph.D.'s...they view the world through the myopic lens of academia and have little or no real world experience. I was in my 40's when I went to college (was almost 50 when I got my MA) and was about the same age as a lot of profs. I had a little home handyman business going and had a guy with a Ph.D marvel because I knew how to change a doorknob! I told him, John, it's two fucking screws! There's only one way it can be done....He told me he would never have figured it out. I became very suspicious as to whether or not I was spending my education dollars wisely lol!

Stats can be useful as long as we keep in mind that things, particularly in finance, change rapidly.

btw, i also know how you must have felt going back to school in your 40s...in my mid-30s now, i'm the old man in the phd program...my peers tend to be about a decade younger, on average.

At first I was terrified...I had no formal education (except 3 mos of adult-ed) so I thought I was going to way over my head. I was saddened to see how woefully unprepared those kids were. On the other hand, I was about the same age as a lot of the profs so I mostly hung around with them.

Ha!!! Hilarious re: the doorknob story. I tend to think our society has over-invested in formal education (bc of top down policies), which largely neglects very important alt forms of education people learn on the job.

Especially when guys coming out of welding schools are going to work (right away) for $50 per hr.

Absolutely...contrast that to 4 years of partying in college for $100,000 and learning things that have fractional contribution to your life and future productivity.

Since I've read Bastiat and his descendants (i.e. the Austrians) my views of economics have completely changed. It was quite hard in Macro class, where we had to mindlessly remember an integral equation about temporal preferences. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!

Same! I'm a big fan of Austrian econ, but even with that i like to find cause for skepticism:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Good points. There is a funny bit of irony to this though. How do you control the influence of economists? Teach citizens how to critically analyze economists' arguments. How do we do this? Teach citizens more economics. Result? More people who think they know something about economics and use faux economics to bolster their arguments.

Where does it end?!?!

Ha! Very good argument...i agree, it's such a convoluted process. There is a big upsurge IMO in pseudo/faux economics, both of the state worshipping variant and the populist backlash. Neither is productive and both can be dangerous.

precisely! in short smart people could be considered as dangerous

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 62864.56
ETH 2538.87
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.93