Good Economist and moral value?

[RonSwanson]

"Neoclassical economics is amoral" - considering that the types of assumptions required for general equilibrium theory, the law of demand, the law of supply, the supremacy of perfect competition etc to work are literally insane and do not jive with any version of reality but do offer a hackneyed justification for the current distributions of income and power I'd say it's definitely immoral and anyone who fully buys into that is either a soulless shill or possibly brain damaged.

I did not see the "putatively" so not meant as a stab at you Humanomics.

[eXcuvator]

Although I do not object the main point you are trying to make, I dislike both your language and the attempt of emotionalizing the debate.

[RonSwanson]

Sorry man, just get passionate about that ****. Still though, it's not like neoclassical theory is ignored, it's the basis for most economic policy decisions, the most egregious forms of it are taught in the only economics classes most college students ever take. Rather than explaining how human behavior, society, political institutions, and environments shape the economy it's main focus has been on forcing everything outside of neoclassical economic theory to conform to their theory.

[aspievirgin]

Ron, which year of undergrad are you in? Serious question.

I don't give a **** about your juvenile ideology, but I'm really starting to fear for the rigor of our undergraduate education when someone who (if I recall correctly) professes a love of Krugman and DeLong turns around and calls every neoclassical economist as "soulless shill" or "brain damaged".

The important point is that any kind of model of a complex system -- a physical model, a computer simulation, or a pencil-and-paper mathematical representation -- amounts to pretty much the same kind of procedure. You make a set of clearly untrue simplifications to get the system down to something you can handle; those simplifications are dictated partly by guesses about what is important, partly by the modeling techniques available. And the end result, if the model is a good one, is an improved insight into why the vastly more complex real system behaves the way it does.


When it comes to physical science, few people have problems with this idea. When we turn to social science, however, the whole issue of modeling begins to raise people's hackles. Suddenly the idea of representing the relevant system through a set of simplifications that are dictated at least in part by the available techniques becomes highly objectionable. Everyone accepts that it was reasonable for Fultz to represent the Earth, at least for a first pass, with a flat dish, because that was what was practical. But what do you think about the decision of most economists between 1820 and 1970 to represent the economy as a set of perfectly competitive markets, because a model of perfect competition was what they knew how to build? It's essentially the same thing, but it raises howls of indignation.


Why is our attitude so different when we come to social science? There are some discreditable reasons: like Victorians offended by the suggestion that they were descended from apes, some humanists imagine that their dignity is threatened when human society is represented as the moral equivalent of a dish on a turntable. Also, the most vociferous critics of economic models are often politically motivated. They have very strong ideas about what they want to believe; their convictions are essentially driven by values rather than analysis, but when an analysis threatens those beliefs they prefer to attack its assumptions rather than examine the basis for their own beliefs.

- Paul Krugman, the Fall and Rise of Development Economics

see also: Brad DeLong: In Praise of Neoclassical Economics

[aspievirgin]

I don't give a damn about your juvenile ideology, Ron, but it really reflects badly on our undergraduate education when someone who apparently majored in economics, professed a love of Krugman and Delong (if I recall correctly), proceeds to callevery neoclassical economist a "soulless shill" and "brain damaged".

Let me remind you...

Brad DeLong: In Praise of Neoclassical Economics

Paul Krugman: The Rise and Fall of Development Economics

The important point is that any kind of model of a complex system -- a physical model, a computer simulation, or a pencil-and-paper mathematical representation -- amounts to pretty much the same kind of procedure. You make a set of clearly untrue simplifications to get the system down to something you can handle; those simplifications are dictated partly by guesses about what is important, partly by the modeling techniques available. And the end result, if the model is a good one, is an improved insight into why the vastly more complex real system behaves the way it does.


When it comes to physical science, few people have problems with this idea. When we turn to social science, however, the whole issue of modeling begins to raise people's hackles. Suddenly the idea of representing the relevant system through a set of simplifications that are dictated at least in part by the available techniques becomes highly objectionable. Everyone accepts that it was reasonable for Fultz to represent the Earth, at least for a first pass, with a flat dish, because that was what was practical. But what do you think about the decision of most economists between 1820 and 1970 to represent the economy as a set of perfectly competitive markets, because a model of perfect competition was what they knew how to build? It's essentially the same thing, but it raises howls of indignation.


Why is our attitude so different when we come to social science? There are some discreditable reasons: like Victorians offended by the suggestion that they were descended from apes, some humanists imagine that their dignity is threatened when human society is represented as the moral equivalent of a dish on a turntable. Also, the most vociferous critics of economic models are often politically motivated. They have very strong ideas about what they want to believe; their convictions are essentially driven by values rather than analysis, but when an analysis threatens those beliefs they prefer to attack its assumptions rather than examine the basis for their own beliefs.

[aspievirgin]

Ron, you might want to read this:

The important point is that any kind of model of a complex system -- a physical model, a computer simulation, or a pencil-and-paper mathematical representation -- amounts to pretty much the same kind of procedure. You make a set of clearly untrue simplifications to get the system down to something you can handle; those simplifications are dictated partly by guesses about what is important, partly by the modeling techniques available. And the end result, if the model is a good one, is an improved insight into why the vastly more complex real system behaves the way it does.

When it comes to physical science, few people have problems with this idea. When we turn to social science, however, the whole issue of modeling begins to raise people's hackles. Suddenly the idea of representing the relevant system through a set of simplifications that are dictated at least in part by the available techniques becomes highly objectionable. Everyone accepts that it was reasonable for Fultz to represent the Earth, at least for a first pass, with a flat dish, because that was what was practical. But what do you think about the decision of most economists between 1820 and 1970 to represent the economy as a set of perfectly competitive markets, because a model of perfect competition was what they knew how to build? It's essentially the same thing, but it raises howls of indignation.

Why is our attitude so different when we come to social science? There are some discreditable reasons: like Victorians offended by the suggestion that they were descended from apes, some humanists imagine that their dignity is threatened when human society is represented as the moral equivalent of a dish on a turntable. Also, the most vociferous critics of economic models are often politically motivated. They have very strong ideas about what they want to believe; their convictions are essentially driven by values rather than analysis, but when an analysis threatens those beliefs they prefer to attack its assumptions rather than examine the basis for their own beliefs.

- Paul Krugman, the Fall and Rise of Development Economics

[Walras]

I doubt there is much correlation unless you're especially morally repugnant to your peers (most amoral people aren't flamboyant enough about it I think that they'd suffer negative peer effects as people hypothesized). Of course, anyone can name a few notorious exceptions.

Anyway, I think there is a good discussion to have and its pretty common on the blogosphere. I remember reading an essay by Ravi Kanbur
http://kanbur.dyson.cornell.edu/pape...estschrift.pdf
About the morality of studying poverty from cushy academic positions and he pulled a lot of interesting stuff from debates on blogs. In general, I think some fields may actually be positively or negatively correlated with morality, though. For example, the fields of development and inequality probably are positively correlated with morality, while I wouldn't be surprised if Auctions and game theory is negatively correlated. Still, I feel like whether someone is a horrible person or not I'm still going to read his stuff because that's the professional attitude to take. When it comes to morality I, ironically, like what Michael Jackson put eloquently in his "man in the mirror" song.

[irate reptile]

Sorry man, just get passionate about that ****. Still though, it's not like neoclassical theory is ignored, it's the basis for most economic policy decisions, the most egregious forms of it are taught in the only economics classes most college students ever take. Rather than explaining how human behavior, society, political institutions, and environments shape the economy it's main focus has been on forcing everything outside of neoclassical economic theory to conform to their theory.

If the current theory is such a failure, what would you replace it with? I think aspievirgin hit the nail on the head. Any model is, by default, going to be a gross oversimplification of reality. Also, I am offended by your contention that neoclassical economists are likely to be less moral than other economists. Frankly, I am surprised that anyone participating in a forum for aspiring economists could hold such a view. Feel free to correct me, but I can see two plausible scenarios for why someone might hold this view:

(1) Being taught by neoclassical economists who were immoral people
(2) Being taught by heterodox economists who preach that neoclassical economists are immoral people.

Admittedly, these are very general. If (1) is true, I am sorry for you. The vast majority of the economists I have encountered are good and decent human beings. I hate to imagine what types of people one would have to be interacting with to draw this conclusion. Assuming, of course, that you are drawing these conclusions based on interactions and not simply attributing negative personality traits because you do not agree with their research.

If (2) is true, then I still feel sorry for you, but mostly because you are letting a group of small-minded people shape your opinion of an entire profession.

[Humanomics]

Note the difference between the words immoral and amoral, and please reread my post again. I was making a comment on positivism, not utility maximization, and anyway am not interested in a discussion about utility maximization.

RE: @RonSwanson

[Humanomics]

Sorry man, just get passionate about that ****. Still though, it's not like neoclassical theory is ignored, it's the basis for most economic policy decisions, the most egregious forms of it are taught in the only economics classes most college students ever take. Rather than explaining how human behavior, society, political institutions, and environments shape the economy it's main focus has been on forcing everything outside of neoclassical economic theory to conform to their theory.

That's not accurate. The popularity of game theoretic and optimization models outside of economics has nothing to do with force, or an alleged imperialism. While I sympathize that useful addenda to neoclassical theory ought to be explored (see my username), these full-scale attacks on neoclassical theory are old saw, trite, and often times poorly informed and immature. Do everything you can to avoid being associated with Adbusters magazine and the (sometimes good but often not) commentary in Real World Economics Review.

Price Theory has been incredibly successful in alighting myriad allocative situations empirically and theoretically -- the point is that not every human situation is an allocative one. See, for example, new growth theory, which is quite a reach in the way it tries to explain where technology comes from (a sever problem, considering allocative models tell us one thing extremely confidently -- growth and its welfare consequences comes from technology).