Is economics not transparent enough?
Posted on: August 22, 2008
Is economics not transparent enough?
I ask this question after reading this awesome post from the Freakonomics post (ht Antidismal) (Disclaimer: It is really only awesome if you are into economics 😛 ). Specifically, these two points that are often raised in presentations:
23. The motivation of the agents in this theory is so narrowly egotistic that it cannot possibly explain the behavior of real people.
24. The flabby economic actor in this impressionistic model should be replaced by the utility-maximizing individual.
Now as you might notice – these two criticisms contradict 🙂 .
Over time I have stated that one of the advantages of mainstream economics is that the assumptions it makes are transparent. However, if us economists can’t agree on the appropriate characterisation of an economic actor (and thereby we adjust our characterisation in an ad hoc manner), how can the results of our economic models be transparent (as what determines the fundamental “rational agent” is unclear)?
Discuss 🙂 (I will try to come up with an answer when I wake up 😉 )
8 Responses to "Is economics not transparent enough?"
August 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“second place, or third.”
I have to admit that I enjoyed that quote as well.
I made this post as I was just wondering if anyone had anything to say about transparency (given that some people feel that even though economics is explicit about its assumptions, it is still not transparent). However, there are no comments from anyone that thinks that yet 😛
August 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Paper should be edible, nutritious. Inks used for printing or writing should have delicious flavors. Magazines or newspapers read at breakfast should be eaten for lunch. Instead of throwing one’s mail in the waste-basket, it should be saved for the dinner guests.JohnCageJohn Cage, M, Writings 1967 – 1972
August 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Thanks Kissinger. Wise words there from a brave mortal-combating 5-year old, taken before his time to everyones detriment, to be sure.
August 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Thanks Kissinger. Wise words there from a brave mortal-combating 5-year old, taken before his time to everyones detriment, to be sure.”
Love the sarcasm – you can tell it is now past 3pm on a Friday afternoon 😛
August 25, 2008 at 10:11 am
There is a simple answer, have a model where some agents are rational and some agents are impressionistic, then it is just a matter of calibrating the percentage of each until we match reality! 😛 Isn’t that what the mainstream inflation expectations and consumption models are all about?
August 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“Isn’t that what the mainstream inflation expectations and consumption models are all about?”
Indeed and that raises the question:
“However, if us economists can’t agree on the appropriate characterisation of an economic actor (and thereby we adjust our characterisation in an ad hoc manner), how can the results of our economic models be transparent (as what determines the fundamental “rational agent” is unclear)?”
– I would term a lot of modern inflation expectations and consumption models as ad hoc.
As a result, is our set of value judgments actually as transparent as we say it is?
agnitio
cpworthington
dant03
goonix
metrosideros
rauparaha
Robbie Allan
stevedoogue
Matt Nolan
The visible hand in economics 
August 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm
28. The speaker apparently believes that there is still one free lunch.
wins imo
“Perhaps this suggests a methodological narrowness to neoclassical economics. But equally, it is the clarity of the framework that gives economic analysis its power.”
second place, or third.