Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Arnold Kling More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
|
||||||||
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc. 
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
On the one hand, you're saying that Blinder and Zandi's model could be better, but on the other hand, you're discrediting macro models altogether. It's a bit of a contradiction.
Link to "reasons I have documented" is broken. Needs a http://
As to the content: oh, please. Apply that level of rigor to your pet theory of Garrett Jones labor, which comes from a tweet. Empirics is for other people, clearly. But who needs econometrics when you already have a narrative to suit your political conclusions!
[Fixed broken link. Thanks! --Econlib Ed.]
It looks like he's referring to this essay on that last link
http://arnoldkling.com/essays/macroeconometrics.doc
It's kind of funny, kind of pathetic, to see an old model that was abandoned being used in current debates. As if those hundreds of really smart people let the model die even though it worked.
Seriously, if we're going to be all "we know these models are wrong, why are we still using them?" please realize that this destroys virtually everything. Yes, even your own pet right-wing RBC or neoclassical or whatever models. Everything - from Solow to general SMD equilibrium to whatever - we know these are wrong. We can't even pretend that they might be right, we actively know that they have to be wrong.
So when you propose a higher level of rigor, make sure your own pet theories meet them first!
That makes more sense. Thanks for addressing my concerns about your earlier objections.
This raises the question of how we are to ever justify any form of macroeconomic policy whatever, of course, but admitting that we have no idea in general is a better starting point than acknowledging merely that some subset has no idea and leaving it there.
What about VAR models? Are there any redeeming features there?
It is the profession that has gone down a blind alley. The question is whether there is anything to be salvaged from the wreckage. Probably not much.
Lots of models are criticized (economic, climate, physiology)
What critics always ignore is that decisions must be made and decision makers always use some model, if nothing else then a "gut feel" or a dart board.
Pointing out the flaws in a model is useless and easy. Critics must build better models.