Posts filed under “UnScience”
Last month, I wrote about global warming in the context of investment opportunities. As part of that discussion, I mentioned McKenzie Funk’s new book, “Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming.” I thought framing the financial opportunities of this might bypass the usual agnotology and political foolishness. To quote:
“This debate is no longer about whether global warming is real (it is) or whether humans are the most likely cause (you are), but rather, some very interesting and different questions that might be more professionally relevant to finance: How is this going to affect business? What are the investing consequences? Who will be the financial winners and losers of climate change?”
The organized response from climate trolls — more than 2,000 comments in a 24-hour period is the result of a specific, directed effort, and not remotely organic — made me even more curious about the book. So “Windfall” went with me on vacation. (continues here)
Attention All Astro-Traders & Financial Astrologers!
That was the subject line of an e-mail that hit my inbox yesterday. It was curious enough that, unlike most of the junk sent my way, I went to Google to see what and who it was all about.
The discussion was forwarded to me by a successful trader I know in the Seattle area, with the observation “It is amazing the lengths people will go to in seeking predictability” along with the tongue-in-cheek comment, “I always wanted to be an astro-trader!”
The e-mail was about a “long awaited” book — really a trading course — titled “Secrets of the Chronocraters,” by Dr. Alexander Goulden. The e-mail boldly claimed this work is the “DEEPEST & MOST ADVANCED work on Financial Astrology ever written!” Which to my skeptical mind, is like arguing which real housewife of New Jersey is the most probable winner of next year’s Nobel Prize in Physics.
Did I mention it is now on sale at the low, low price of $3,600? That seems like a perfectly fair price for “a concise, applied manual, which will predict market trends and turns like nothing else.”
Column continues here
Full email after the jump
Last week, the New York Times reported that venerable Dow Jones Industrial Average component Coca-Cola Co. was awakening to the impact of climate change on its business. The increase in unpredictable weather, droughts, floods and other climate-related events was disrupting the company’s product supply. Some of their “essential ingredients” are now under threat. Global warming,…Read More
The chilling weather phenomenon that hit much of the U.S. in January is explained by scientist Eric Fetzer using data from NASA’s AIRS instrument. To see a data only version, watch at: http://youtu.be/PCtDB0zOcO4 This movie of temperature observations from NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft depicts the first major North American…Read More
Lately, I have been spending an inordinate amount of time with economists.
This past month, I have been at several dinners (party of 8) with them, spent time in the woods of Maine chatting them up, listened to their debates on economic policy, even spent time in a canoe fishing with them. Propriety — and Chatham House Rules — prevents me from naming any of the wonks, but it includes Chief Economists at major Wall Street firms, government entities, professors, with a few Nobel laureates thrown in for good measure.
This has led me to an interesting chain of thought about economists in general, and the failure of economics the discipline specifically. Note that I find economists to be intelligent, engaging and often charming. My references here are not to the people who call themselves economists, but rather to their work product that we call “economics.”
Long time readers know this is an an area of interest to me for many years (see the list after the jump). Way back in 2009, I gave 10 reasons Why Economists Missed the Crises. All 10 of the reasons given remain in force today, and may even be stronger.
In the intervening years, I have reached a few conclusions. This is worthy of much deeper study and analysis than the short shrift given here, but until then, I have a few ideas I wanted to jot down. If you have any intelligent thoughts on this subject, be sure to share them in comments.
Based on my time spent with Economists, here are a few anecdotal observations:
Issues of Economists & Economics
1. Economics is a discipline, not a Science. Physics can send a satellite to orbit Jupiter, Economics cannot tell you what happened yesterday. This is an enormous distinction, and has led to a) the “Physics Envy,” and b) an unnecessary emphasis on mathematical complexity.
2. Models are of limited utility. People forget that (as George Box has noted) models are imperfect depictions of reality. If you become overly reliant on them, you encounter a minefield of problems. Several analysts have told me that if the Fed cannot model something, than to them, it does not exist. Think about the absurdity of that viewpoint — and its impact on policy.
3. Contextualizing data often leads to error. This is more complex than it appears. What I mean by this is that everything that economists consider has to be forced into their intellectual framework; since everything is viewed through the imperfect lens of Economic Theory, the output is similarly imperfect — sometimes fatally.
4. Narrative drives most of economics. This is the corollary to the context issue. Everything seems to be part of a story, and how that story is told often leads to critical error. Think about phrases like “stall speed”, “second half rebound”, “muddle through”, “Minsky moment”, “austerity”, “escape velocity”, etc. All of these lead to rich tales often filled with emotional resonance.
5. Economists are loathe to admit ‘They Don’t Know.’ This trait is common to many professions, but I suspect the modeling issue may be partly to blame. Whenever I see forecast written out to 2 decimal places, I cannot help but wonder if there is a misunderstanding of the limitations of the data, and an illusion of precision. To paraphrase, “Only the people who understand both the data and its limitations will not get lost in the illusion of precision.”
6. A tendency to confuse correlation with causation. This is one of the oldest statistical foibles known to mankind, and yet economics remains rife with it at the highest levels. Look no further than the Fed’s obsession with the Wealth Effect for a classic correlation error; I shudder when I think about what other arenas they are fundamentally lost in.
7. The Peril of Predictions. I cannot figure out why economists seem to be so wed to making predictions, given how utterly miserable they are at it. Items 1 and 5 might be a factor.
8. Sturgeon’s Law: Lastly, there is a wide dispersion of talent in Economics, and following Sturgeon’s Law, many of the rank & file are simply mediocre.
One last note: This is not, as Paul Krugman has referenced, a debate as to which subgroup of economists are right or wrong; rather, its a set of observations of the species as a whole.
Perhaps this post is mis-titled; Instead of Blame the Economists it should read Blame Economics.