Archive for the ‘clever and bored’ Category
Who is the closest person out there to being a “mad economist”, in the sense of a mad scientist?
I have a hard time thinking of anyone who really qualifies. I think this is because mad scientists do practical things that directly affect the real world- either by building crazy things (death ray, killer robot, 5 assed baboon, et c), or by using crazy methods for research (harming human/animal subjects, making their base underwater/ in an active volcano / on the moon).
Economists tend to be bound to relatively boring methods (doing math on a chalkboard or analyzing data on a computer) that lead to relatively boring outcomes (writing papers that expand our understanding of the world a bit and possibly tell policymakers what to do).
The recent trend toward lab and field experiments in economics certainly expands the possibilities for madness. Prisoners’ Dilemma experiments are a nice touch here, especially when someone decided to run them with actual prisoners. The Phillips machine was a fun one-off. But I can’t think of anything that rises to the level of psychology’s Milgram Experiment, much less the things that have been done in the “real” sciences of biology, chemistry and physics.
Occasionally economists get some power within companies, or start their own. But coming up with a new strategy for a hedge fund or designing auctions for Google doesn’t really get into “madness” territory either. Economists are forever telling the government what to do, but rarely get listened to. During total war they have been vested with lots of power over the economy, though I haven’t heard of any particularly crazy things they did with this power. Levitt’s long con to catch terrorists was a nice touch. Armen Alchian used economics to discover that lithium was the moderator for the atomic bomb, but his only plan to use that information was to write a paper about it, and he abandoned even that at the request of the government.
But is there anything an economist has done that rises to the level of a Tesla, Mengele, Musk, or TunaPig? Anything an economist might do that could match a single invention of Drs Kreiger, Evil, or Horrible?
In general, PhD economists (myself certainly included) are too much thinkers rather than doers. The closest people we have to mad economists are probably people who learned some undergraduate economics, then went out to change the world- people like Elon Musk or Dread Pirate Roberts.
Who am I forgetting? What would a real mad economist look like?
Has global temperature risen significantly in the last century? I’m sure this post will settle the global warming debate once and for all.
Seriously though, I am surprised how economists feel the need to qualify their discussion of the subject by saying “I’m not an expert”. True, economists are not experts on climate, but many are leading experts on the analysis of time-series data. One of the biggest debates in economics for the last 3 decades is about the trend in a time series- not temperature, but gross domestic product.
I am not an expert even on this narrower subject, but in some sense this is an advantage- I don’t know enough to cheat. I can’t keep trying different approaches until the results come out the way I want, because I only know a couple of approaches. Compare this to graphs, where I know enough to get exactly the results I want. Here is a graph of global temperatures since 1881, data from NASA:
Now that’s an upward trend if I’ve ever seen one! These two graphs are two basically legitimate ways to look at essentially the same data, but they seem to point to opposite conclusions. This is one reason statistical tests are important- they can’t be fooled by changing axes or adding a constant to the whole series. Of course, the disadvantage is that they require a lot more knowledge to use and analyze than graphs do.
You can already see the result of one statistical test- the regression equation on the second graph that was used to draw the trend line. It estimates that temperature is increasing .006 degrees Celsius each year, and that this simple increasing-temperature model predicts 75% of the variation in the annual data. A regression on the first graph shows the same thing (rescaled), though I did not include it as it would undermine the how-to-lie-with-graphs point. Time is strongly significant in this regression (p-value 0.00)- so this basic analysis says the increase in temperate is statistically significant.
A more advanced way to test for a trend in data is an Augmented Dickey-Fuller test. This test also suggests there is an upward trend- technically, that we cannot reject the null assumption of a unit root (more technically, it looks like it is ARIMA(0,1,3), for those who care). So, according to my naive analysis, there certainly seems to be an upward trend in temperature.
What does this really tell us? Perhaps not much. First, I assumed that the dataset from NASA is correct. Second, I chose to analyze 130 years, but there is no reason to choose this number except that it is how much data I had; the results are certainly sensitive to the number of years included. Finally, I have done nothing to test the idea that increased carbon is causing this increase- perhaps I will in another post. So, with those three grains (big rocks?) of salt, it looks like we have global warming.
There are three kinds of philosophy:
1) Natural Philosophy
3) Answers to made-up questions like ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ that show the answerer is really clever.
If most philosophical questions were definitively resolved one way or another, should people act any differently as a result? I think not, and if not, I submit that philosophy is pointless.
Except, of course, as a way of showing how clever you are. That is to say, most philosophers are just in it for the chicks and the money.
So, philosophers, tell me why you do it and what would change if you got definite answers to non-scientific, non-ethical questions.