Hacker News Reader

Even if you don't believe economists generally act in good faith I'm not convinced that arbitrarily selected snarky quotes from other mainstream economists are necessarily a convincing substitute for argument.

The ironic thing is that looking at the conference programme there were almost certainly more radical arguments made by the invited speakers... https://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2015conference/program/preliminar...

> I'm also not crazy about Jungian psychotherapy, but you don't see me protesting outside the psychiatrist conventions.

Economics is much more political than psychiatry, and most other sciences. As you stated, maybe due to it's lack of hard science. So it doesn't surprise me that there are activists doing this.

Whether it will actually influence the top economists who have politicians ears, and to a lesser extent overall academia, is the big question.

From that perspective I agree with the protesters, though I'm coming from the right of the mainstream instead of the left. Economics, particularly that of the academic variety, seems like an exercise in starting with a view of the world and fitting the data to it instead of the other way 'round.

But I agree with DanielBMarkham in that economists are generally working in good faith (though I have my doubts about Krugman). It's just not very easy to see your own biases.

I have a guilty pleasure: I enjoy watching economists. I read the financial opinion columns, and I enjoy the policy debates. But that's just because I like watching smart people argue. Economics is a great place to watch this.

Krugman looks to me like a political shill, not an economist (Somebody said once that most of his columns should start with "Fools!") He'll say something outrageous, and then over the next several days other economists will try to sort it all out. Many times it's just political bickering, but there have been times where it looks like he's crossed the line: I see folks who don't do politics try to come out publicly and reason with him. It's most always a mistake. The more they pile on the more he revels in it.

Having said that, I'm fine with him continuing to opine. The dangerous thing I'm seeing is politicians who don't seem to be responsible for anything: everything they do is based on experts somewhere who are more than willing to back them up on whatever decision they make. The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy. That's where the lines are blurring, and that's the reason you see well-meaning (but perhaps not-so-well-educated) folks protesting who can work the job of basically "a guy that tells me things I didn't know". It's because they view professors as some sort of priesthood that decides what the policy should be. That's not true -- and it should never be true.

For example, in today's reading: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/01/12/krugmans...

> The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy

Not only in politics but also in courts. The more cases I read through involve technology the more I'm convinced there is a greater disconnect between judges/jury vs understanding of technology, than political economics vs the public.

This is particularly dangerous these days as cybercrime becomes a hot topic and a bunch of 80yr+ olds will have the final say. People who never grew up with computers and rely heavily on 'experts'. And I highly doubt you'll find many protesters outside of a case-by-case basis.

Although I suspect science and politics has always been dichotomous throughout history. Hopefully(?) in the future AI-assisted policy will help negate this..

> To me it's just astrology for people who know calculus.

> [...]

> While I may disagree with methodology, and I may even argue politically about policy implications based on conclusions various sciences reach

Economics is a science like theology is a science. Some of our skepticism just goes beyond yours. Actually, the word "economics" was created to replace "political economy" by some of the most political of the economists like Jevons and Marshall. I can accept the impartiality of astronomers coming to a consensus of how close the star Proxima Centauri is to earth. Insofar as deciding how the pie should be divided up, to call that a science with people working in good faith is absurd.

> Economics is a science like theology is a science.

No, its not. Economics deals with measurable phenomena in the material world.

> can accept the impartiality of astronomers coming to a consensus of how close the star Proxima Centauri is to earth. Insofar as deciding how the pie should be divided up, to call that a science with people working in good faith is absurd.

Deciding how the pie should be divided up is not within the scope of the science of economics. Predicting how the pie will end up divided given certain starting conditions and policy frameworks, OTOH, is.

Economics does not, unfortunately; deal with falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested.

And it is at best confined to natural experiments since we can't spin up 10,000 civilizations that start with the same resource base but different economic policies.

The fact that you _believe_ economics is a science in spite of the evidence; suggests that you are not as objective as you think you are.

Economics does, in fact, deal with falsifiable hypotheses which can be tested. In fact, a large part of the reason that we know that the rational actor model is flawed in ways besides the assumption of perfect information is by experiments in economics falsifying hypotheses based on that model.