INET's outstanding work is helping to shed light on the deepest problem of humanity-how to construe productive exchange. Ideological economics has legitimized economic exploitation.
I think this critique is not entirely fair. The economy is a complex system of millions of interactions. Neo/classical economics does not even attempt to describe such systems, but tries to explain the most basic principles of economic interaction by formulating some idealized case and then logically deducting the consequences. Now, you can deduce some high level policy rules from this but are not able to fully understand how the economy on a larger scale moves. Of course, this often is misused by lobbyist but the point is that the underlying maths for this analysis is absolutely sufficient. In fact, most principles can be deducted simply by using graphs. What this guy seems to do is explaining a complex system with complex maths. Something fundamentally different. I think no mater how much maths you throw in, you will never be able to fully describe the economy and will never be in a position to make more accurate statements on how the setup should be. You will just end up with some complex mathematical model that will grow out of hand and is of no more use than the simple models.
1) You cannot map from an idealized case to a real case unless you know the map function and standard economics doesn't even bother to know. 2) You can correctly deduce no high-level policy rules whatsoever when you have no idea if your simplified model maps onto the real world. 3) The lobbyists are the ones who are pretending to be the economists. 4) You can fully describe a complex system, to some extent. We can forecast weather 7 days out. What you do is throw out microfoundations (which actually aren't microfoundations anyway) and go to a systemic model. IS/LM is one example, from decades ago.
Agreed. I just also a read an article at Aeon magazine advocating Evolutionary "Theory" as a viable basis for Economics too. It seems every man and his dog suddenly wants his theory to be the underpinning of Economics despite having very little basis in reality.
Yea.. I remember the math from college basic econ.. From what I now understand about society and capitalism, that math didn't scratch the surface. The behavior data which was utilized was paleolithic. Even then, late '60's, early '70's, Veblen and Giffen economics had already become almost dominant economic forces with their own unique linear behaviors!. The economics of capitalism, including its mathematics, needs to evolve to keep pace with that. For one thing, not doing so might be causing existing corporate/institutional taxation schedules to be waay off the mark, which may be resulting in underfunding at Fed., state, county etc. levels.
I find this is be very interesting since one of the reasons I got away from economics are this mainstream economic theories based on mathematical nonsense, some of them come from nobel prize winners, but they fail so bad at explaining economics that I would rather study the economic model of a homeless person which may have a better predictive power. The models have to come from empirical evidence not mathematical constructs and include psychological issues of irrational choice in mathematics.
Re: the "buggy and whip" mathematics of the 19th century. Don't look down your nose too far at mathematics of the past. After all, while Smith Ricardo economics was failing so miserably the winning economies of the last century were the ones that revived Mercantilism.
As an econ student, it's weird to hear these concepts being discuesd as new. There have been many improvements to the classical model in the past 100 years, a lot of them are taught in undergrad economics courses and they all use math.
I'm sort of skeptical you listened to the whole interview. Did you go "beyond ordinary differential equations" as an undergrad? Did you go beyond "Jacobian models"? Did you look at "topological properties?" Did you learn anything like a "formal Minsky" model as an undergrad?? Did you even learn Minsky as an undergrad? If so, where did you do your undergrad work?
That's right I think those techniques are just applied in engineering schools, undergrad doesn't even see those models even in master and Phd degrees in developping countries
For reference my school covered all of the following in an undergrad course. (at ANU) dataandinfo.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/economic_dynamics__theory_and_computation.pdf This is literally stochastic dynamics, something the interviewee seems to think is ignored by the profession, and that he is all the wiser for knowing. Fortunately, most advanced undergrads and all grad students are using mathematics that is a lot more recent than the 19th century as claimed in this video. In fact the vast majority of undergrads in econ planning to go into research will have done much more advanced stuff than this. Think functional analysis, spectral theory, measure theory, stochastic DEs, topology etc. A lot of those are pretty recent tools even at the undergrad level. The idea that econ is based around standard calculus a la Marshallian demand / supply is pretty laughable.
Topology has been used in economics since von Neumann, Zeuthen, Nash, Debreu, and Arrow. The statement of a fixed-point theorem is known to anybody who has picked up a textbook on M.A.-level micro-economics (at research universities). Von Neumann and Morgenstern criticized ODEs and Jacobian analysis in their 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. They suggested using functional analysis and topology, and their program has led to the development of linear programming and convex analysis, for example. Linear programming has been used for logistics since the 1940s and it has been integrated in spread-sheets since the 1980s. It has been taught in economics departments since the 1950s. It has been used to genetically engineer microbes for industrial use (and to provide medications to poor people in developing economies) for a decade or more. Conditions for a unique general equilibrium are not applicable to many applications, especially in dynamics. Consequently, path-dependence has been studied since the 1980s, certainly at the Santa Fe Institute, and some of this research was then described in Scientific America. Generalized Jacobians and differential inclusions have been studied intensely since the 1970s, e.g., by Francis Clarke. They have been used in computational optimization and economics since the 1980s. They have been used for traffic planning and e.g., internet planning and optimization for a decade. But please tell us more, physicist, about the lack of scientific testing of economics! Please tell us more about the failings of mathematical economics!
I don't fully understand the criticism here. Should economics wait until there is a complete Grand Unified Theory in physics? Must all disciplines wait for physics to be complete before they begin an analysis? The single most substantially mathematical concept mentioned here would be bifurcation. I would argue that it is an incredibly important and explanitory concept for economics. "Economic reality is in fact very simple"?
It's really convenient the way you can turn someone's education in a subject into a fault rather than a virtue. That way you can go about parading around your ignorance and superficial observations on economic phenomena with undeserved arrogance, while at the same time belittling the real work that tens of thousands of highly trained professionals have put into the subject. Your whole post reads like a slogan for the club of unlearned meat heads.
Bro, either do the math and show the proofs or stfu. Kf you're too stupid to understand Ito Calculus or. Ergodic Theory then you have no right to talk. You're the type of idiot that would have burnt Copernicus.. Fuck you and the dim witted snowflakes.
Or do you consider yourself smarter than the community of mathematicians. A community that single-handedly made it possible for you to be posting such idiotic noncssnse online?
@@JesseMaurais Oh really. Then you won't have a problem reading through JWS Cassels' Economics for Mathematicians. Also please don't tell me you go to a shitty community college, unless you're dealing with Gaitsgory level lectures please spare me the useless chatter. I've seen the shit show that is the US Math Bachelor program (even in Ivy League) so it's hard to take you seriously. Don't take it personally, but starting off with bullshit highschool level courses to only do real math after 3 years of daycare isn't something European university students (even at lesser institutions) are impressed with.
Excellent explanation. We cannot continue wih this economic system that required constant exploitation of our limited resources, and most of all, only for the pursuit of monetary profit. We need to act globally because our resources are distributed all around the planet. Check The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and a Resource Based Economy for more info...
Approach like this one is exactly *waiting* and it leads nowhere. It helps "economics" stay an excuse of status quo in widest sense. In essence its waiting while humanity is unnecessarily bleeding, while planet with its limited resources is being pillaged and converted into a pile of waste. To understand our current "economics" you dont need anything more than exponential function chart. THAT is waiting for hell to happen. Its undoubtedly tough problem but this is totally futile approach, IMO.
+Asymptote Physics majors are borderline mathematicians. We have a sequence of classes called Mathematical Methods 1,2,3.4... where you cover things like: * tensor analysis * abstract algebra/group theory/representation theory * diff geometry * point-set topology * functional analysis * etc... also, we don't cover them the engineering way, but rather Def - Theorem - Proof like mathematicians, just very sped up. My Single Variable and Multivariable Calculus classes were based off Aposotol/Spivak/Loomis/Rudin. They were basically Real Analysis. Many of us take further mathematics during our undergrad. Double majors are extremely common as well. I'll be taking Topology II and Dynamical Systems next semester.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
INET's outstanding work is helping to shed light on the deepest problem of humanity-how to construe productive exchange. Ideological economics has legitimized economic exploitation.
I think this critique is not entirely fair. The economy is a complex system of millions of interactions. Neo/classical economics does not even attempt to describe such systems, but tries to explain the most basic principles of economic interaction by formulating some idealized case and then logically deducting the consequences. Now, you can deduce some high level policy rules from this but are not able to fully understand how the economy on a larger scale moves. Of course, this often is misused by lobbyist but the point is that the underlying maths for this analysis is absolutely sufficient. In fact, most principles can be deducted simply by using graphs. What this guy seems to do is explaining a complex system with complex maths. Something fundamentally different. I think no mater how much maths you throw in, you will never be able to fully describe the economy and will never be in a position to make more accurate statements on how the setup should be. You will just end up with some complex mathematical model that will grow out of hand and is of no more use than the simple models.
But you have to understand that economics is not just simple supply and demand. You need complex math to measure values in an economy
1) You cannot map from an idealized case to a real case unless you know the map function and standard economics doesn't even bother to know.
2) You can correctly deduce no high-level policy rules whatsoever when you have no idea if your simplified model maps onto the real world.
3) The lobbyists are the ones who are pretending to be the economists.
4) You can fully describe a complex system, to some extent. We can forecast weather 7 days out. What you do is throw out microfoundations (which actually aren't microfoundations anyway) and go to a systemic model. IS/LM is one example, from decades ago.
Agreed. I just also a read an article at Aeon magazine advocating Evolutionary "Theory" as a viable basis for Economics too. It seems every man and his dog suddenly wants his theory to be the underpinning of Economics despite having very little basis in reality.
hubristic, maths can create mathemathical model of known but not unknown and circumstantial
Do you 'believe' in evolution? If so, I can hardly understand how you would object to it's application as an element in the foundation of economics.
Yea.. I remember the math from college basic econ.. From what I now understand about society and capitalism, that math didn't scratch the surface. The behavior data which was utilized was paleolithic. Even then, late '60's, early '70's, Veblen and Giffen economics had already become almost dominant economic forces with their own unique linear behaviors!. The economics of capitalism, including its mathematics, needs to evolve to keep pace with that. For one thing, not doing so might be causing existing corporate/institutional taxation schedules to be waay off the mark, which may be resulting in underfunding at Fed., state, county etc. levels.
Exactly, models.
I find this is be very interesting since one of the reasons I got away from economics are this mainstream economic theories based on mathematical nonsense, some of them come from nobel prize winners, but they fail so bad at explaining economics that I would rather study the economic model of a homeless person which may have a better predictive power. The models have to come from empirical evidence not mathematical constructs and include psychological issues of irrational choice in mathematics.
Your an idiot
Re: the "buggy and whip" mathematics of the 19th century. Don't look down your nose too far at mathematics of the past. After all, while Smith Ricardo economics was failing so miserably the winning economies of the last century were the ones that revived Mercantilism.
As an econ student, it's weird to hear these concepts being discuesd as new. There have been many improvements to the classical model in the past 100 years, a lot of them are taught in undergrad economics courses and they all use math.
I'm sort of skeptical you listened to the whole interview. Did you go "beyond ordinary differential equations" as an undergrad? Did you go beyond "Jacobian models"? Did you look at "topological properties?"
Did you learn anything like a "formal Minsky" model as an undergrad??
Did you even learn Minsky as an undergrad?
If so, where did you do your undergrad work?
That's right I think those techniques are just applied in engineering schools, undergrad doesn't even see those models even in master and Phd degrees in developping countries
For reference my school covered all of the following in an undergrad course. (at ANU)
dataandinfo.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/economic_dynamics__theory_and_computation.pdf
This is literally stochastic dynamics, something the interviewee seems to think is ignored by the profession, and that he is all the wiser for knowing. Fortunately, most advanced undergrads and all grad students are using mathematics that is a lot more recent than the 19th century as claimed in this video. In fact the vast majority of undergrads in econ planning to go into research will have done much more advanced stuff than this. Think functional analysis, spectral theory, measure theory, stochastic DEs, topology etc. A lot of those are pretty recent tools even at the undergrad level.
The idea that econ is based around standard calculus a la Marshallian demand / supply is pretty laughable.
Topology has been used in economics since von Neumann, Zeuthen, Nash, Debreu, and Arrow. The statement of a fixed-point theorem is known to anybody who has picked up a textbook on M.A.-level micro-economics (at research universities).
Von Neumann and Morgenstern criticized ODEs and Jacobian analysis in their 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. They suggested using functional analysis and topology, and their program has led to the development of linear programming and convex analysis, for example.
Linear programming has been used for logistics since the 1940s and it has been integrated in spread-sheets since the 1980s. It has been taught in economics departments since the 1950s. It has been used to genetically engineer microbes for industrial use (and to provide medications to poor people in developing economies) for a decade or more.
Conditions for a unique general equilibrium are not applicable to many applications, especially in dynamics. Consequently, path-dependence has been studied since the 1980s, certainly at the Santa Fe Institute, and some of this research was then described in Scientific America.
Generalized Jacobians and differential inclusions have been studied intensely since the 1970s, e.g., by Francis Clarke. They have been used in computational optimization and economics since the 1980s. They have been used for traffic planning and e.g., internet planning and optimization for a decade.
But please tell us more, physicist, about the lack of scientific testing of economics! Please tell us more about the failings of mathematical economics!
@James Blevins Love your work
doesn't anyone find the idea of creative mathematics troubling?
I don't fully understand the criticism here. Should economics wait until there is a complete Grand Unified Theory in physics? Must all disciplines wait for physics to be complete before they begin an analysis?
The single most substantially mathematical concept mentioned here would be bifurcation. I would argue that it is an incredibly important and explanitory concept for economics.
"Economic reality is in fact very simple"?
I love listening programs about economic
It's really convenient the way you can turn someone's education in a subject into a fault rather than a virtue. That way you can go about parading around your ignorance and superficial observations on economic phenomena with undeserved arrogance, while at the same time belittling the real work that tens of thousands of highly trained professionals have put into the subject. Your whole post reads like a slogan for the club of unlearned meat heads.
Bro, either do the math and show the proofs or stfu. Kf you're too stupid to understand Ito Calculus or. Ergodic Theory then you have no right to talk. You're the type of idiot that would have burnt Copernicus.. Fuck you and the dim witted snowflakes.
@@imgelfand2327 10:49
Or do you consider yourself smarter than the community of mathematicians. A community that single-handedly made it possible for you to be posting such idiotic noncssnse online?
@@imgelfand2327 Strange you would say that. I am a mathematician and a computer scientist.
@@JesseMaurais Oh really. Then you won't have a problem reading through JWS Cassels' Economics for Mathematicians.
Also please don't tell me you go to a shitty community college, unless you're dealing with Gaitsgory level lectures please spare me the useless chatter. I've seen the shit show that is the US Math Bachelor program (even in Ivy League) so it's hard to take you seriously.
Don't take it personally, but starting off with bullshit highschool level courses to only do real math after 3 years of daycare isn't something European university students (even at lesser institutions) are impressed with.
dead particles, really?
This fits with economists physics envy but is completely misguided from the get go
Excellent explanation. We cannot continue wih this economic system that required constant exploitation of our limited resources, and most of all, only for the pursuit of monetary profit. We need to act globally because our resources are distributed all around the planet. Check The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and a Resource Based Economy for more info...
falsifiability?
Approach like this one is exactly *waiting* and it leads nowhere. It helps "economics" stay an excuse of status quo in widest sense. In essence its waiting while humanity is unnecessarily bleeding, while planet with its limited resources is being pillaged and converted into a pile of waste. To understand our current "economics" you dont need anything more than exponential function chart.
THAT is waiting for hell to happen. Its undoubtedly tough problem but this is totally futile approach, IMO.
You don’t need to overcomplicate for the sake of arrogance
how can u call ur self a Mathematician when u have degrees in Physics? maybe a Sudo Mathematician?
+Asymptote Physics majors are borderline mathematicians.
We have a sequence of classes called Mathematical Methods 1,2,3.4... where you cover things like:
* tensor analysis
* abstract algebra/group theory/representation theory
* diff geometry
* point-set topology
* functional analysis
* etc...
also, we don't cover them the engineering way, but rather Def - Theorem - Proof like mathematicians, just very sped up. My Single Variable and Multivariable Calculus classes were based off Aposotol/Spivak/Loomis/Rudin. They were basically Real Analysis.
Many of us take further mathematics during our undergrad. Double majors are extremely common as well. I'll be taking Topology II and Dynamical Systems next semester.
You mean "pseudo"
Preferred Stock
no i meant sudo
he's my calc professor stfu