Posts filed under “Really, really bad calls”

Site of the Day: Innumeracy.com

innumer

>

Some good learnin’ here:

This web site stems from a personal interest in critical thinking and is a collection of links to articles and sites pertaining to numeracy and critical thinking. Links should be good for at least the date posted. After the posting date, link reliability depends on the policy of the linked sites. Some sites may require registration before allowing access.

Category: Mathematics, Really, really bad calls

Gramm: Glass Steagall Repeal Irrelevant

Phil Gramm, the former Republican Senator from Texas who co-wrote the act that undid Glass-Steagall, has our DQotD: > “I’ve never seen any evidence to substantiate any claim that this current financial crisis had anything to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley. In fact, you couldn’t have had the assisted takeovers you had. More institutions would have failed.”…Read More

Category: Bailouts, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

Volcker: Accounting Panel Needs to be Independent

Why aren’t we listening more to this font of common sense and logic? “A proposal to give banking regulators authority to block accounting standards is “a terrible idea,” Paul A. Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said Monday. Mr. Volcker has been an outspoken critic of “mark to market” accounting that forced…Read More

Category: Bailouts, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

Ayn Rand: The Boring Bitch is Back

There is a substantial take-down of pedantic bore Ayn Rand in GQ. They tease it thusly: 2009′s most influential author is a mirthless Russian-American who loves money, hates God, and swings a gigantic dick. She died in 1982, but her spawn soldier on. And the Great Recession is all their fault. I love that because…Read More

Category: Psychology, Really, really bad calls

Hubbert Peak Theory of Oil Rock

Long standing readers of TBP know I like to try to slip in a lesson or two. The humor and money making market commentary is used as a device to keep you coming back and learning, despite yourself. Today, I require no pretense for the edumacation. Instead, I will demonstrate one of my favorite peeves,…Read More

Category: Really, really bad calls, Technical Analysis

Jim Chanos’ presentation at the Virginia Value Investing Conference: > Chanos Presentation: Ten Lessons From The Financial Crisis That Investors Will Soon Forget (If They Haven’t…

Category: Psychology, Really, really bad calls, Think Tank

Worst Idea of 2009

Shorter Floyd Norris: “Goldman Sachs is trying to arrange to buy tax credits from Fannie Mae. Obviously, it would buy them at a discount. Goldman, you may recall, was saved with taxpayer money when the panic spread last year. A naïve person might think such a company would see a patriotic virtue in paying taxes….Read More

Category: Bailouts, Really, really bad calls

The Hubris of Economics

On Tuesday, the 2nd most emailed article on WSJ.com was Crisis Compels Economists To Reach for New Paradigm.

It is an intriguing look at the problems of the the field of economics. It went, however, way too easy on both the profession and its practitioners. The article fails to ask some very basic questions about the soft science, and does not discuss the fundamental incompetency of many economists.

Given the failures of the profession — failing to anticipate the worst recession in decades, missing the warping effect of the housing boom, not recognizing the credit collapse until too late — a damning indictment of the dismal science might have been more appropriate.

Perhaps I can be of assistance.

There are many areas I would have liked to see the Economics Crisis article explore: The lack of Scientific Method, the mostly awful performance of economists, its misunderstanding of the value of modeling, the bias inherent in Wall Street variant of economics, and lastly, the corruption of economics by politics. I will just touch on some of these; you can fill in much of the blanks yourself.

Let’s start with the basics. Hard “science” — Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and all variants thereto — begins humbly. They try to describe the universe around us by creating theories, and then testing them. These theorems are always preliminary. Even when testing validates them, Science is always prepared — even eager — to replace them with newer theories that are proven to be even more valid.

The humility of science begins with an admission: We know nothing. We seek to learn through experiment and logic, and constantly evolve more and more accurate explanations. Scientific belief evolves gradually over time. Nothing is assumed, presumed, or hypothesized as true. Indeed, research is a presumption that current theories are inadequate or incomplete. The practice of science is a an ongoing search for better explanations, more proof, further verification — for Truth.

Science is the ultimate “show me” state.

Economics has a somewhat, shall we call it, less rigorous approach. Indeed, the arrogance of economics is that it is the polar opposite of Science. It begins with a few basic assumptions, many of which are obviously untrue; some are demonstrably false.

No, Mankind is not a rational, profit maximizing actor. No, markets are not perfectly, or even nearly, efficient. No, prices do not reflect the sum total of all that is known about a given market, sector or stock. Those of you who pretend otherwise are fools who deserve to have your 401ks cut in half. That is called just desserts. The problem is that your foolishness helped cut nearly everyone else’s 401ks in half. That is called criminal incompetence.

Where was I?  Ahhh, our sad tale of the practitioners of the dismal arts.

Starting from a false premise that fails to understand the most basic behaviors of the Human animal, economics proceeds to build an edifice of cards on a foundation of sand. (How could that possibly go astray?) Like a moonshot off by a few inches at launch, by the time the we reach further into time and space, the trajectory is off by millions of miles . . .

~~~

Economics has had a justifiable inferiority complex versus real sciences the past century. It has attempted to overcome this by throwing lots of smart mathematicians at its practice, in an attempt to make the social art seem more “sciency,” and thus  more credible. This had led to lots and lots of formulas and models. The problems is, Economics places way too much weight on these. It creates an illusion of precision where none exists. The belief in their models led to all manner of mischief, from subprime to derivatives to risk management.

Economics forgot George E. P. Box’s most basic rule:

“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

Box was a statistician who recognized the fundamental truth of all attempts to depict the universe mathematically: They are inherently flawed.

He also understood that these flawed attempts can at times have value. His insights contextualize what mathematical modelers do — and fail to achieve.

Economics fails at this often.  The belief in the validity of their models — like the theories they are based upon — is the Achilles heel of the profession.

This is not to say there are not good, even great economists (some are even friends of mine!) who foresaw the coming crisis and warned about it. Many are aghast at the rigor mortis in the academic establishment; some are horrified at how poorly the profession has done. Forget forecasting the future, too many economists cannot accurately describe what happened yesterday.

The Behaviorists have been fighting the mainstream for decades now, trying to correct the errors of the basic building blocks of the dismal science.

>

Excerpt after the jump.

>

Previously:
The Mystery of the Awful Economists
RealMoney.com, 3/2/2005 3:42 PM EST

http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/barryritholtz/10211333.html

(If you cannot access the Real Money piece, click here).

Mystery of the Awful Economists, part II (April 8th, 2005)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2005/04/mystery-of-the-awful-economists-part-2/

Mystery of the Awful Economists part III (April 13th, 2005)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2005/04/mystery-of-the-awful-economists-part-iii/

RIP Chicago School of Economics: 1976-2008 (December 23rd, 2008)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/chicago-repudiation/

Why Economists Missed the Crises (January 5th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/why-economists-suck/

The Big Picture: On the Efficient Market Hypothesis (2005-09)

The Big Picture: On Prediction Markets (2004-09)

Source:
Crisis Compels Economists To Reach for New Paradigm
MARK WHITEHOUSE
WSJ, NOVEMBER 3, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720159912223873.html

Read More

Category: Markets, Mathematics, Really, really bad calls

Uh-Oh: Economists Say Recovery, Market Gains Solid

No worries! The same people who missed the worst oncoming recession in 80 years, the credit collapse (worst in US), and the market crash are now telling you the recovery is for real. Gee, why does this — Economists expect recovery to stick, see slow, steady GDP rise — not make me more comfortable? “Nearly…Read More

Category: Contrary Indicators, Really, really bad calls

Wolf vs Siegel: EMH Smackdown

You might have missed yet another smackdown yesterday: A debate on the Efficient Market Hypothesis in the FT vs the WSJ: • Martin Wolf: How mistaken ideas helped to bring the economy down (FT) • Jeremy Siegel: Efficient Market Theory and the Crisis (WSJ) My read is Wolf trounced Siegel, but as a non-fanboy of…Read More

Category: Markets, Really, really bad calls