Australian Economists Predictions No Better Than Flipping a Coin

First time accepted submitter ras writes "The Reserve Bank of Australia did some investigation into the accuracy of their economic predictions — the ones they use to run the country — with less than flattering results. '70 per cent of the RBA's forecasts for underlying inflation for the year ahead were close to the mark, but its predictions of economic growth were less accurate, and its unemployment rate estimates no better than [chance] ... The Reserve Bank employs numbers of people on very high pay and what they're admitting now is that their — all of this so-called science — has produced nothing more than what a roll of the dice could produce.'"

Comments

Economy is not a science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Economy is not science and won't ever be.

Re:Economy is not a science.

[The Evil Atheist]

Uh, most governments of the world cut back expenditure during recession. That's not what Keynesian economics would suggest as a course of action.

If by "majority of the world" you actually mean the US, then it is more the Randians that are screwing up your country with their mad race to the extreme.

Re:Economy is not a science.

[alexgieg]

A major part of the problem is that the thing that macro-economists study, the economy of the world, changes its behavior in response to the reported observations of the economists.

It's worse than that, at least according to Austrian economics. For them, the theoretical basis of macro-economics, or at least of almost all of them, namely, the assumption what money (as a measurement unit) is what matters, is simply false. So, all the models starting from it will suffer no matter what.

The main criticism Austrian economists throw at macro-economics, econometrics etc. is that money isn't an objective unit, it's just a representation of subjective preferences that very from person to person, and within a single person from instant to instant, only resembling something minimally solid, and thus as a fake unit, as a kind of surface effect. Thus, the same way that a sociology divorced of any concept of human psychology is bogus, so is any macro-economics that doesn't base itself entirely on that small subset of human psychology that is micro-economics. True economics is at best a sub-field of psychology, and macro economics is at most a sub-field of sociology.

Austrian economists only do math after they manages to understood reasonably well the psychological mechanisms behind a set of atomic exchanges (not necessarily involving money), provided it shows itself as something that can have calculations done, which most often than not isn't the case.

Mainstream economics doesn't like this, at all. Keynesians, marxists, econometrists etc. all believe they have a unit of measurement, and that they can turn this unit and its measurement into a hard science. They cannot. It's wishful thinking, if not outright bullshit. But it's a bullshit so full of technobabble, so enchanting in its seeming seriousness, that the self-deception simply proceeds, unchecked.

Now, that doesn't means Austrian economics isn't full of bullshit too. It's own model of human psychology they call praxeology is extremely flawed, since it's based on philosophical assumptions more than on actual psychological research. Much of it is quite useful, or at least inspiring, but non-scientific anyway. But what they do very well, and the reason I keep reading them, is their debunking of mainstream economics pseudoscientific assumptions. They are at the top of their game when they take a macro-economics equation, break it down in its main components, and proceed to show analytically how what it describes is pure, glorified nonsense.

So, here's what must be done to really turn economics into the mostly scientific discipline it can ever be: take Austrian criticism of macro-economics, add the state of the art in cognitive sciences, develop an actually valid psychology-based micro-economics from both (it won't be Austrian's praxeology), and then, by way of reductionist thinking, build from then, step by step and floor-by-floor, a bottom-up macro-economics that's based on something actually relevant and universally valid (which "money" most definitely isn't).

Then, and only then, at least a semblance of actually working models.

Re:Economy is not a science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, general relativity and anything else in physics is just a model, too.
The difference is that physicist have the brains to realize that when their "model" is more than marginally and very rarely wrong you don't have a model, you're just making shit up.
So no, the problem is not that they are "just models", but that what economists use just aren't models in any useful meaning of the word.
Unless you would consider "nothing ever moves" a physical "model" of our world.

Re:Economy is not a science.

[The Evil Atheist]

Nothing about the US bailouts was Keynesian. It may look Keynesian, but the underlying motive and effect is US Crazy Randian. What is Keynesian about tax cuts for the rich and attacking the middle class?

As for Japan, it actually isn't that bad. Unlike what economists would like us to believe, perpetual economic growth is stupid and dangerous. Japan kept it mostly level and it wouldn't have been so bad if economists weren't fear mongering about phantoms. Japan may have lost a decade, but it's not as if it plunged into the Dark Ages.

This is the stupid reality economists have people like you believing - that you can live in a city and not die from common diseases, not go hungry, not go homeless, but if you don't have your five wide screen TVs in your McMansion with economic growth every year, then it's the Worst Economy Ever.

Well...

[smegfault]

If 'the market' makes decisions based on the predictions of the RBA, it's no wonder the predictions about 'the market' don't often hold up.

Economics...

[s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner]

Economics is the only field where one can be considered an expert without ever having once been right.

Re:No wonder ...

[Kupfernigk]

No, his analogy (high speed trading) is exactly correct. The stock market is not out of business because most people understand card sharping, but they do not understand how bank traders work. If they actually did and understood the implications, people would be hanging from lamp posts.

Re:Eh mate?

[alexgieg]

The roots of Austrian economics begin with Carl Menger, not Bohm-Bawerk.

You're right, thanks.

From your other note, if Austrian economics is non-scientific then mathematics is also non-scientific. IMO (as an economist and not a philosopher) Austrian econ can make an even stronger case than than math for being scientific because I'm satisfied that the action axiom is a priori true whereas the fundamental axioms of math are not. You can probably deduce that I don't believe 'science' is defined by induction :-)

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it confuses two meaning of "science". Since you mention math, let me use it as an example.

Nowadays it's an accepted matter that you can select basically any set of axioms you wish, and from those you'll be able to fully develop an entire math from them. So, if I want, I can, let's say, determine that the division by 0 has a finite result, and as long as I follow rigorous a logical reasoning, I'll get a consistent, with-division-by-0 math. Some other things will work differently from what we're used, but that's about it.

Now, for us to go from math as a whole, which includes the set of all possible combinations of all possible arbitrarily chosen non-contradictory axioms, to that specific subset that applies to the real world and in turn can be used to describe it, we need a non-a priori component, in that we must observe the actual world and find what of those axioms apply here.

Praxeology doesn't do that for its own axioms. It defines with extreme precision what it understands by "action", and derive lots of conclusions from it, which for the sake of argument we can assume are valid. But it doesn't come and actually prove empirically that what specific thing it calls "action" is the only one at play in economic relations. So, since we're assuming the conclusions from the axiom, if 100% of economics is built upon "action", then praxeology describes all of economics. But this hasn't been proven. It could be that the actual number is 99.999%, or 50%, or 0.001%, or even that the percentage varies given changing factors.

Thus, even with praxeology being valid from one extreme to the other, we still need to actually look into the world to find how much of it actually applies. There's no way around it.

Additionally, the logic upon which deductions from the action axiom are obtained can itself be challenged. It's for the most part classic logic with Kantian additions. What does happen if we were to start deducing with, let's say, para-consistent logic instead? Would it work better or worse in the real world? This, too, is a matter that can only be solved with experimentation.

And so on and so forth. Nothing in this is as straightforward as Austrian economists make it to be.