Dating Sarah Palin must take a toll…
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yeah, well, that’s just not how good science > works. why ever presuppose that economics is a physical science and must measure up to the tests of phsyical science? William Anderson at mises.org tries to decipher why mainstreamers find the use of math in economics fascinating. " It does not matter whether or not mathematics is the most appropriate tool to describe economic human action. Since the majority of people in the economics profession use math for their work, it has passed the “market test” and, therefore, is the correct tool to use. In the vernacular, everybody uses math because everybody uses it. One hundred thousand economists cannot be wrong, so the belief goes." Further ,an example using math" “Take the simple “Lagrangian Multiplier” that we use in basic graduate-school economics to “explain” consumer behavior. Here, economists construct an equation in which one’s utility depends upon, say, goods “x” and “y.” The ability to accumulate such goods is constrained by one’s income and the prices paid for the goods. In determining the “optimal” state that the consumer can enjoy, one uses tools of multivariable calculus to reach a point where “equilibrium” is reached. At that point, the marginal utility of good “x” divided by the price of good “x” is equal to the marginal utility of good “y” over the price of that good. (I have not done the mathematical work on this page for obvious reasons.) The problem here is that this “solution” is nonsense. Utility (or consumer satisfaction) cannot be measured in cardinal terms. There is no way to take a cardinal measure of someone’s satisfaction. I can say that I like chocolate more than vanilla, but I cannot put that preference in cardinal numbers. An attempt to do so is nothing short of an exercise in fraud”
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > Yeah, well, that’s just not how good science > > works. > > why ever presuppose that economics is a physical > science and must measure up to the tests of > phsyical science? > William Anderson at mises.org tries to decipher > why mainstreamers find the use of math in > economics fascinating. > " > It does not matter whether or not mathematics is > the most appropriate tool to describe economic > human action. Since the majority of people in the > economics profession use math for their work, it > has passed the “market test” and, therefore, is > the correct tool to use. In the vernacular, > everybody uses math because everybody uses it. One > hundred thousand economists cannot be wrong, so > the belief goes." > Silly. The basis for using mathematics in economics is not that other people do it. It’s that gajillions of useful insights and predictions have been made using it. Which, of course, does not mean that you must use it. > > Further ,an example using math" > “Take the simple “Lagrangian Multiplier” that we > use in basic graduate-school economics to > “explain” consumer behavior. Here, economists > construct an equation in which one’s utility > depends upon, say, goods “x” and “y.” The ability > to accumulate such goods is constrained by one’s > income and the prices paid for the goods. > > In determining the “optimal” state that the > consumer can enjoy, one uses tools of > multivariable calculus to reach a point where > “equilibrium” is reached. At that point, the > marginal utility of good “x” divided by the price > of good “x” is equal to the marginal utility of > good “y” over the price of that good. (I have not > done the mathematical work on this page for > obvious reasons.) > > The problem here is that this “solution” is > nonsense. Utility (or consumer satisfaction) > cannot be measured in cardinal terms. There is no > way to take a cardinal measure of someone’s > satisfaction. I can say that I like chocolate more > than vanilla, but I cannot put that preference in > cardinal numbers. An attempt to do so is nothing > short of an exercise in fraud” Actually, an “attempt to do so” with Lagrange multipliers in “basic graduate-school economics” is an attempt to teach Lagrange multipliers on almost certainly fictional data. This is just a strawman. Is there a study out there that anyone takes as serious economics that involves chocolate and vanilla preferences and Lagrange multipliers? What exactly is he criticizing here except some weird attempt to move from graduate school teaching through math modelling to ice cream flavors?
i give up.you are determined to not listen to the other view point.
jmh530 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For instance, you mention that the hypothesis > doesn’t stand up to decent empirical tests without > probably checking to see if people have done them. > Indeed, people have done empirical tests. Here > are two places to look. These aren’t perfect by > any means. There are plenty of other papers where > they use Austrian economics to explain different > historical episodes. > An Empirical Examination of Austrian Business > Cycle Theory - Robert Mulligan > Empirical Evidence for Hayek’s Theory of Economic > Fluctuations - Charles Wainhouse > Now this is a meaty post and I wonder how I should respond to it. a) Economics is not my primary or even secondary interest in finance. I try to be well-educated so I can discuss these things on some level. b) I have not read any of the above and it is likely I never will. b 1/2) I am utterly certain that jmh knows more about the research in business cycles and central banking than I do. c) I am aware of lots of that research (what’s this crap “without probably checking to see if people have done them.”?). My source on this (since I don’t care about it that much) is Friedman who surely does not believe it and has done his own research and reviewed others. Austrian economics, even Austrian empirical economics, has a real problem with me because of the political ax to grind (as well as the total rejection of Realpolitik that really does matter). I would rather leave this debate to other people who care about it more. My issue on this thread was about civility - quips and light jabs are okay, but instant haughtiness isn’t (especially with words like “ignorant” - in 10,000+ posts I don’t think I have ever used that word except possibly to describe some third party, e.g., “GWB is the most ignorant possible President with the possible exception of Sarah Palin”).
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i give up.you are determined to not listen to the > other view point. Where did you get that? That I don’t like a strawman argument?
@usgae of the word ignorant. to be fair , i did immediately take that back and replace it with ‘taunt and barb’.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > Yeah, well, that’s just not how good science > > works. > > why ever presuppose that economics is a physical > science and must measure up to the tests of > phsyical science? > William Anderson at mises.org tries to decipher > why mainstreamers find the use of math in > economics fascinating. > " > It does not matter whether or not mathematics is > the most appropriate tool to describe economic > human action. Since the majority of people in the > economics profession use math for their work, it > has passed the “market test” and, therefore, is > the correct tool to use. In the vernacular, > everybody uses math because everybody uses it. One > hundred thousand economists cannot be wrong, so > the belief goes." > > Further ,an example using math" > “Take the simple “Lagrangian Multiplier” that we > use in basic graduate-school economics to > “explain” consumer behavior. Here, economists > construct an equation in which one’s utility > depends upon, say, goods “x” and “y.” The ability > to accumulate such goods is constrained by one’s > income and the prices paid for the goods. > > In determining the “optimal” state that the > consumer can enjoy, one uses tools of > multivariable calculus to reach a point where > “equilibrium” is reached. At that point, the > marginal utility of good “x” divided by the price > of good “x” is equal to the marginal utility of > good “y” over the price of that good. (I have not > done the mathematical work on this page for > obvious reasons.) > > The problem here is that this “solution” is > nonsense. Utility (or consumer satisfaction) > cannot be measured in cardinal terms. There is no > way to take a cardinal measure of someone’s > satisfaction. I can say that I like chocolate more > than vanilla, but I cannot put that preference in > cardinal numbers. An attempt to do so is nothing > short of an exercise in fraud” Graduate School Econ? That was undergrad for me. I have to agree with Joey that there is way to much “instant haughtiness” on this forum at times. It’s fine to debate your point, but there is no reason to make things personal.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jmh530 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For instance, you mention that the hypothesis > > doesn’t stand up to decent empirical tests > without > > probably checking to see if people have done > them. > > Indeed, people have done empirical tests. > Here > > are two places to look. These aren’t perfect > by > > any means. There are plenty of other papers > where > > they use Austrian economics to explain > different > > historical episodes. > > An Empirical Examination of Austrian Business > > Cycle Theory - Robert Mulligan > > Empirical Evidence for Hayek’s Theory of > Economic > > Fluctuations - Charles Wainhouse > > > > Now this is a meaty post and I wonder how I should > respond to it. > > a) Economics is not my primary or even secondary > interest in finance. I try to be well-educated so > I can discuss these things on some level. > > b) I have not read any of the above and it is > likely I never will. > > b 1/2) I am utterly certain that jmh knows more > about the research in business cycles and central > banking than I do. > > c) I am aware of lots of that research (what’s > this crap “without probably checking to see if > people have done them.”?). My source on this > (since I don’t care about it that much) is > Friedman who surely does not believe it and has > done his own research and reviewed others. > > Austrian economics, even Austrian empirical > economics, has a real problem with me because of > the political ax to grind (as well as the total > rejection of Realpolitik that really does matter). > > > I would rather leave this debate to other people > who care about it more. My issue on this thread > was about civility - quips and light jabs are > okay, but instant haughtiness isn’t (especially > with words like “ignorant” - in 10,000+ posts I > don’t think I have ever used that word except > possibly to describe some third party, e.g., “GWB > is the most ignorant possible President with the > possible exception of Sarah Palin”). you know what, let time be the judge. we have milton friedman’s acolytes in power at the fed now and the helicopters are starting to whirr right about now in true milton friedman response to this -ie dump more money to solve the issue .on the other hand,austrian business cycle theory did predict a credit collapse because of credit expansion of the worst kind that happened in the g’span years (please dont simply dismiss it as a permabear kind of prediction.you can leave that to stephen roach who btw,turned bull in mid 2006 with a ,statement reminding one of irving fisher, " I must confess that I am now feeling better about the prognosis for the world economy for the first time in ages" http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20060501-mon.html#anchor0
I meant ignorant of Austrian Economics. Not ignorant overall. As dictionary.com says, it just means untrained or uninformed.