You’d think that a Nobel Prize winning economist would have had some fabulous brilliant insight that had actually won him that Nobel Prize. Then you go for a lecture and hear stuff like sound institutions and governmental will are very important factors in determining economic growth. (Unsaid: Of course measuring these factors is very difficult so we just ignore them in our models.)
I mean seriously. I don’t need some Nobel Laureate to tell me that. Jeez. No wonder I’m getting fed up with economics.
Anyway, Ill be bitchy and state that the speaker was Michael Spence. Who as M says won the Nobel for stating that people in a market don’t have symmetrical information. In his words "Duh!!"
Also speaking was Paul Romer, whose New Growth Theory I applied to a specific country for my first ever economics paper. I told him that when I met him. And was questioned by my Associate Dean as to what I had said that caused Mr. Romer to grin so broadly. Oh well, he deserved to be flattered. I don’t analyze just anybody’s work. Heh.
I’m not usually so harsh on economics and economists. But a lot of what they say has become terribly redundant. Not to mention the fact that economics research is just pure math and in a conference, well, it’s very hard to present that. So many generalised, common sensical, dumbass statements tend to be made.
I should know about the math. My advanced macro class is driving me nuts. I don’t know what insanity possessed me to take the masters level class. Arghh. All these lagrangians and hamiltonians, perturbations and exploding equations. If I had put in so much effort studying math in my class 12 exams I would probably have topped the CBSE.
How was I to know economics would descend into this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Ah. The joys of advanced math. (I am an electrical engineer by education, but college-level Math was SO much easier than my CBSE XII math.)
welcome to the club! griping about econ is a topic close to my heart :-)
you're right, they've let the math guide whatever insight they may provide. which is why i say don't be too hard on spence, after all, he was a pioneer in introducing reality to the field.
Didn't someone say "Economics is the painful elaboration of the obvious"? My father told me that, and he has a degree in the dismal science too.
km: Joys of advanced maths? That’s really the electrical engineer in you speaking is it not?? Agree totally about college math being better than CBSE. Once you know how to differentiate and integrate its ok...
tr: I have a complete love-hate relation with econs. I agree with what you say about Spence and that applies to some others as well but the speed at which the discipline moves is ridiculous. I mean, for example, it takes 30 years before someone points out that human capital is a factor in growth (Romer) and that Solows growth model is lacking!!
It’s a bit frustrating as a student, because you have to study a lot of models like that. Whatever conclusions they reach are always so suspect...
mt: Ya, that quote is very apt. It is painful. And it can be frustrating. No wonder all sensible people leave economics eventually, or broaden their scope ala Amartya Sen. It’s the mad science and maths types who have hijacked the field!!!
haha many people pouring out their pain on these pages. but you took the words right out of my mouth.
said in one of my classes: 'if your von-neumann morgenstern utilitity functions are replaced by a concave transformation, your payoff in a bargaining game, ceteris paribus, will be lower in equilibrium than in the previous case.'
in other words, if you are more risk-averse, the more the other person will take advantage of it and drive a hard bargain. any fisherwoman worth her name could have said this, even 3000 years ago.
szerelem:
that's all very well, ma'am, but i don't see the "love" part :-D
oh and excuse me but i just have to say...
cyberswami:
utilitity functions?! crikey, d-school's getting even more of a party place than it was in my time!
cyberswami: haha...yes tis nice to know that there are other people who like cribbing about economics as well!! and your comment about the von-neumann morgenstern utilitity functions had me rolling with laughter.
The only utility functions I like are Cobb-Douglas. =P
TR: The love is limited and doesnt show itslef when one is drowning in papers and midterms are around the corner. Oh and utility functions own economics.
where are you studying, by the way? and what degree is this, if I may ask?
Am doing my BSc. in economics with a second major in political science. I didnt have to take the advanced grad class but killed myself by voluntarily doing so. Sigh.
where? sounds like a killer programme, especially after seeing your growth paper.
Post a Comment