Complexity and decline

[Samson]

So there are some real non-electric sheep involved.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But their study found to be the case what was already known.

They asked shepherds how dogs move sheep around. They built a computer program to model that. They got results. They tested those results against studies of how dogs move sheep around.

That's less "robust" than it is tautological.

I see why you think your study fulfills my challenge as originally stated:

Yeah, and show me the mathematical model for getting a group of animals from one point to another.

But remember, this is split off from the discussion of why economics never manages to effectively model human economic choices. So what I should have been more careful to say is "show me a model for how sheep will move based on various positions of food, wolf, shepherd and dog. And then make the sheep humans, who might decide they want to kill that pesky wolf once and for all, grow that food into more food, turn the shepherd into an air-traffic controller. The permutations for what humans might want to do are too infinite ever to throw a model around them."

And even with your sheep study, the real test would be if it found some better way of moving sheep from one place to another that what is presently known. Or else, as I noted above, it's effectively just a tautology, drawing facts from shepherds and testing them against shepherds.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why do you need to have your model grounded in theory? Get a large enough dataset, then use that to build an empirical model. It doen't matter what theory it's based on as long as it works.

A hundred years of stock market, economic data and modeling attempts have mostly failed except for the long term trends.

 

[Samson]

A hundred years of stock market, economic data and modeling attempts have mostly failed except for the long term trends.

Yet they tell us they can. What would it be like if you could say that about your doctor?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yet they tell us they can. What would it be like if you could say that about your doctor?

GDP growth is not the same as modeling and predicting the stock market (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly) despite decades of daily data.

 

[Narz]

It's why I'm opposed to a UBI. May as well spend the money on a massive state housing building program instead. Welfare payments are enough with cheap rent. Same with minimum wage.

I don't think ubi could truly be 'universal', you have to target certain groups (students and young adults would be a good choice along w the elderly as always). But of course choosing who is the tricky part.

If you give to 100% you just make money worth less yeah.

Keep in mind, Samson, economics is one of the social sciences. Those can never be nearly as exact as the physical sciences because of what Voidwalkin said: people are irrational. At least they don't move as predictably as water does.

To an omniscient force humans would be as predictable.

Yeah, and show me the mathematical model for getting a group of animals from one point to another.

More profitable to keep them in one place staring at their phones. Much easier to track than 'in the wild'

But if some rich techbros wanted to see if they could convince say 10,000 people to move from one state to another just as a power trip (trading places style, heh just noticed my own pun ) they could probably do it

 

[Narz]

Yet they tell us they can. What would it be like if you could say that about your doctor?

You can say that about most doctors. Especially psychiatrists. More money poured in every year, more drugs taken, worse outcomes (depression, anxiety, etc)

When the incentives are high enough, the facts confusing enough to be able to get away with feigning confidence why wouldn't they? Throw in a lack of accountability and you've got a perfect tornado of schmäh.

And with "authorities" so useless we wonder why conspiracy theories abound.

 

[ls612]

Why do you need to have your model grounded in theory? Get a large enough dataset, then use that to build an empirical model. It doen't matter what theory it's based on as long as it works.

Also, I'm not really looking for a paper describing how it works. I'm looking for commercial modelling software that does it. If I was showing someone how computational hydraulics is done, I wouldn't find something a univerisity professor had made, I'd point you at tools like ANSYS CFX, InfoWorks or FloodModeller (formely, unfortunately, known as ISIS). It just really surprises me that this kind of thing doesn't exist given the amount of data we have on economics - I would've thought that some predictive modelling programmes based on this empirical data would exist.

As an aside, this is one of the areas where AI is beginning to have some useful results - making predictive models from huge datasets.

You need this because theory disciplines what you do with your data. If you just run a bazillion regressions on a huge dataset you will find all sorts of spurious correlations. Theory gives you a way to take a few assumptions about human behavior that are hard to argue with (people like more stuff over less for instance) and a few equilibrium conditions (markets must clear) to focus your inquiries.

As a side note I often see people complain that economics assumes humans are rational when the poster believes that they are not. In economics when we say an agent is rational it has a very specific and limited meaning, namely that;

• Their choices will follow a transitivity rule (if a is chosen over b and b chosen over c then a will be chosen over c).
• Any two choices can be compared to each other (or you can say you are indifferent between the two).

If those conditions are true then your choices are rational, as economists define it. It is actually quite hard to create systems which would clearly show irrational behavior as most examples of irrationality (ie default choice preferences) can be rationalized by adding small switching costs or similar frictions to a model.

 

[Samson]

You need this because theory disciplines what you do with your data. If you just run a bazillion regressions on a huge dataset you will find all sorts of spurious correlations. Theory gives you a way to take a few assumptions about human behavior that are hard to argue with (people like more stuff over less for instance) and a few equilibrium conditions (markets must clear) to focus your inquiries.

This is true of most of science. This is why you measure predictive power. I have just suggested a trivial analysis that could add a confidence interval to a prinicipal economic estimate. Does that not show that there is room for improvement?

As a side note I often see people complain that economics assumes humans are rational when the poster believes that they are not. In economics when we say an agent is rational it has a very specific and limited meaning, namely that;

• Their choices will follow a transitivity rule (if a is chosen over b and b chosen over c then a will be chosen over c).
• Any two choices can be compared to each other (or you can say you are indifferent between the two).

If those conditions are true then your choices are rational, as economists define it. It is actually quite hard to create systems which would clearly show irrational behavior as most examples of irrationality (ie default choice preferences) can be rationalized by adding small switching costs or similar frictions to a model.

You say this like it supports your point, when you are stating what should be easily demonstrable with data without data. What real science would you accept that way?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Narz]

You need this because theory disciplines what you do with your data. If you just run a bazillion regressions on a huge dataset you will find all sorts of spurious correlations. Theory gives you a way to take a few assumptions about human behavior that are hard to argue with (people like more stuff over less for instance) and a few equilibrium conditions (markets must clear) to focus your inquiries.

As a side note I often see people complain that economics assumes humans are rational when the poster believes that they are not. In economics when we say an agent is rational it has a very specific and limited meaning, namely that;

• Their choices will follow a transitivity rule (if a is chosen over b and b chosen over c then a will be chosen over c).
• Any two choices can be compared to each other (or you can say you are indifferent between the two).

If those conditions are true then your choices are rational, as economists define it. It is actually quite hard to create systems which would clearly show irrational behavior as most examples of irrationality (ie default choice preferences) can be rationalized by adding small switching costs or similar frictions to a model.

I think it's just too complicated.

I give props to the economists who are really trying and not trying to sell themselves as Nostradamus figures.

I suppose my knee jerk assumption is both malevolence (an agenda) and incompetence but I should probably not paint all economists w that brush.

Also economists are thought to be the archenemies of environmentalists, converter the real flesh, blood and chlorophyll into dollars and sense, like a slaveowner would see his slaves.

But I know there are economists who try to quantify the natural world in a way to encourage it's preservation but that still doesn't seem so common in a dog eat dog world of nationstates (hand in hand w mega-corporations) hell bent on growth.

 

[Gori the Grey]

assumptions about human behavior that are hard to argue with (people like more stuff over less for instance)

I've recently reached a stage in my life where I in fact favor less.

I'm sure the assumption is still relatively sound and that I am an outlier.

 

[Narz]

I've recently reached a stage in my life where I in fact favor less.

I'm sure the assumption is still relatively sound and that I am an outlier.

Minimalism is a big trend these days, I don't think hoarding is inherent to humanity it's just drilled into almost everyone from infancy

 

[Crezth]

No, the system is not complex at all. Everyone is free and responsible for themselves and makes personal choices. Yes, even “slaves,” who often choose to remain slaves. Then, people do as they wont, and the sun also rises. What’s complex about this?

 

[ls612]

You say this like it supports your point, when you are stating what should be easily demonstrable with data without data. What real science would you accept that way?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I'm stating that in economics that is the definition of rationality. I don't need to prove a definition. I then stated that most decision patterns which are thought to be "irrational" can actually be rationalized (ie a set of rational preferences can be made to fit those choices). That is a mathematical theorem (or several actually) which doesn't require any data to prove or disprove.

 

[Samson]

I'm stating that in economics that is the definition of rationality. I don't need to prove a definition. I then stated that most decision patterns which are thought to be "irrational" can actually be rationalized (ie a set of rational preferences can be made to fit those choices). That is a mathematical theorem (or several actually) which doesn't require any data to prove or disprove.

OK, fair enough, you did not actually claim it was a valid assumption, but I read it like you were saying it was.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Minimalism is a big trend these days, I don't think hoarding is inherent to humanity it's just drilled into almost everyone from infancy

I like to think I'm confounding some economist's study somewhere.

 

[Narz]

I like to think I'm confounding some economist's study somewhere.

Right, everyone who solves their own problem without the formal marketplace does this too.

The fact that we are all helplessly dependent on the market could equally be celebrated or derided as a testament to the utter lack of self sufficiency of modern communities.

 

[Crezth]

Right, everyone who solves their own problem without the formal marketplace does this too.

The fact that we are all helplessly dependent on the market could equally be celebrated or derided as a testament to the utter lack of self sufficiency of modern communities.

What is not self sufficient about a community that sends representatives to a congress whose government makes sure that imported oil remains cheap? Isn’t that the very definition of self sufficiency - the ability to support one’s own needs by one’s own power? In this case the power to convince oil to remain cheap.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

I like to think I'm confounding some economist's study somewhere.

I'm under the radar too.
Even if I wasn't, I doubt that they have slots in their models for my use of 2B leads and yellow writing pads.

 

[Crezth]

Yeah I’m also an individual.