This. My undergrad was in Economics (a long time ago). There was a time I thought about doing a PhD, but ended up doing an MS in Quant Finance instead. It's hard to believe that anyone can take a DSGE model seriously as a model of how the economy works.
For the unaware - graduate level Economics is nothing like pop Economics, it's essentially an applied math degree. But the math in question is extremely wonky. Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
I'm a pure math major, and I took several economics classes. The whole field was very baffling for me.
The most reliable model was the dead simple IS–LM, which is based on observations. But you don't really need a lot of math for it, so it's boring.
As a result, researchers keep trying to generalize the microeconomic behavior of people to derive macroeconomic laws. Like we do with the ideal gas laws. And this produces reams of beautiful math that you can investigate and tweak endlessly. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of predictive power.
Thing is, the part about using math for economics is highly debatable and that's why Austrian School of economics doesn't use it. From that perspective, we use ranking systems for our preferences, at the individual level, so using math for aggregate behaviour is just not well substantiated. This point of view comes from Carl Menger, which started the whole marginalist revolution.
As far as I can tell, Austrians believe that analyzing based on individual preferences and actions is the key. I haven't made it very far into Mises Human Action, but I gather that was the starting point and Mises developed many theorems based on that. So if you say that allowing individuals to maximize their preferred choices given the constraints around them is "the market" and artificially restricting those choices, using acts or threats of violence, is "the government", then yes, I suppose that is their framework. One of the main things they would probably push back against is the notion to think of the market or government as independently existing entities. The government is just a collection of individuals who use violence to impose their will on others in a way that most of the society is agreeable to, at least to some extent, and, because they are individuals, they have their own preferences and actions which can also be analyzed in this framework. If you think people in the market do things that are nasty when all the actions are voluntary (and that certainly can happen), shouldn't you be even more skeptical of those who are willing to engage in violence to force the things they want to come to be to happen?
Austrians would also object to the notion of something being perfect. But they do analyze situations in which an external force interferes with the normal voluntary flow of actions and generally find that the stated outcomes (probably not the actual desired outcomes) of those external forces is generally not met. For example, rent control is often argued for as about helping more people to be housed and, empirically, that usually is not what happens when rent control is enforced. One could argue that the real intent of rent control is about making life better for the well-connected at the expense of the less well-connected and that probably does happen regularly.
If I were to summarize the insights of economic schools of thought, then we get:
1. Keynesianism: "Your spending is my income, so when there's not enough spending, the government needs to step in".
2. Monetarism: "The monetary supply directly controls the economy and is the primary reason for economic phenomena".
3. Austrian economy: the market god, the market is king, all hail the market.
The first two approaches provide actionable models and make predictions. As with all models, they have limits of applicability, and they are often wrong to some degree.
Meanwhile, Austrian economics is always right. And when it's wrong, it's because you haven't done it hard enough.
> If you think people in the market do things that are nasty when all the actions are voluntary (and that certainly can happen), shouldn't you be even more skeptical of those who are willing to engage in violence to force the things they want to come to be to happen?
Well, let's look at a particular example: pollution regulation. Laws limit the almighty Market by forcing compaines to clean up their waste.
Another example is monopolism. In the view of the Austrian economy "school" it is _always_ the result of government actions. And monopolies wouldn't exist otherwise, even for things like water supply and sewer.
As an American, all economic discussion I've ever seen has been posturing as #1 or #2 while desperately pretending you aren't just trying to justify #3.
The Capitalist Market is the One True God of America. All the math and waxing philosophic are just set dressing to make that idea less obviously absurd.
Abusive monopolies without the imposition of violence (either by the government or the company) lasting for a long time horizon? Yes, that would seem implausible in a free market. For example, if someone controlled the water pipes and charged a $1000 for a cup of water, then someone would find a way to bring in water for less and would start contracting to build their own pipes, maybe locking in long term contracts with people given the time horizon of construction. That threat alone keeps the prices low. But I also live in a city with city run water and sewage where the infrastructure is falling apart and the cost is on the order of 2k a year for normal water usage and actually would be about 1500 if no water was used. Sewage overflows, water goes brown and federal intervention is required. So a little competition might actually be useful.
As for pollution, have you looked at the history of state run industries and their pollution record? How well does the US military manage its pollution, particularly prior to the EPA when the public consciousness shifted? How many of the worst private polluters were in the service of the government (such as for the military)? There are also tales of the communist countries and their abuse of the environment. And in the context of a democracy, one would assume that if it is faithful to what people want, then to have pollution controls requires at least 50%+ of the population to want them. That sounds like a strong market incentive to provide that not to mention actual destructive pollution can be subject to claims by those injured by the polluters. While it was before the largest amount of industrial pollution, there was a time in the US before the government got involved where pollution was restricted by such considerations. Companies did not like that so the government started to regulate in order to protect the polluters. Time and time again, actual government legislation is used to either protect the guilty or it comes in when 90% of a problem has already been resolved.
Also, the first two economic schools of thought you list do not make any basic sense. If it is just spending, then why would there be boom bust signals? Why doesn't everyone just keep spending? Something else must cause a reduction in spending which ought to be pretty important. If monetary supply is the only control for the economy, then set it and forget it on the trajectory you want. Since there doesn't seem to be a stable path, then some other factor is important to consider.
For either of them, why not just print up a million dollars for every person? Do you suddenly have a supply of million dollars worth of goods for everyone? No. There is real wealth that has to be produced and that is why futzing around with money is not good enough.
The information coordinating function is that of prices which requires a relatively stable money supply for accurate signals. If the money supply is artificially tampered with, then the entrepreneurs make bad bets, thinking that either there are more resources then there are (inflationary monetary supply, boom period) or there are less (deflationary monetary supply, spending contraction). The first case leads to half-completed projects when actual resources run out across the economy (bust). This leads to recession/depression which is a time to realign the resource allocation to what is actually desired if government stays out of the way. Compare the 1920 economic downturn (hands-off government, rebounds quickly) to the 1929-1940s economic depression (heavy government intervention under both Hoover and even more Roosevelt). In the second with deflationary, it is idle resources that are the result, they get cheaper, and eventually leading to a boom. There aren't too many examples I am aware of of this though there is a train of thought that the late 1920s had inflation (to help the British with their war debt?) and then the Fed reversed course and starting deflating the money supply cause quite the shock. In any event, both are examples of problematic time periods during the price readjustment to the new value of money.
The main reason the government inflates money is so that they can spend without explicit taxing (inflation is an implicit tax for those that do not get the first rounds of the money printed) and allows for the wealth to borrow to acquire assets, where asset prices inflate with the money supply while the debt burden deflates with inflation. This is specifically to help rich people get much, much richer.
> Abusive monopolies without the imposition of violence (either by the government or the company) lasting for a long time horizon?
Example: Google. It happened all by itself in an essentially unregulated area, without any real government action.
> Compare the 1920 economic downturn (hands-off government, rebounds quickly) to the 1929-1940s economic depression
The 1920 downturn was _stopped_ by the government intervention. You're confusing the cause and the effect.
Want another example? Look at 2008. The US went with a tepid Keynesian approach of fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing. So the economy recovered to pre-recession levels in 2 years. Europe went with the Austrian approach of austerity and tight monetary supply (they RAISED the interest rates!), and it took 11 years for them to claw back to the pre-recession levels.
And what is the conclusion of Austrians? That there was not enough austerity!
It was about abusive monopolies where consumers want something different. This is easily fixable by competition. Google is a perfect example of how incredibly easy it is to escape that monopoly. I do it all the time. Imagine what would happen if google started charging a $100 a month for its services. The issue is that the current situation does not conform to what "superior intellectuals" think people ought to do so they want to use violence (government) to force people to live the way they see fit. Yay! All it takes is changing the default. And the anti-monopolists did not even try to do a public awareness campaign of this evil; they went to court (violence) instead of persuasion.
I am unaware of what government intervention you are talking about in 1920. I have heard explicitly that the government did nothing by historians and I asked ChatGPT and it had nothing [1]. In that same conversation I also asked it compare Europe versus US in 2008 from an Austrian perspective. The main thesis Austrians have for busts is that of misallocated resources based on false price information whose remedy is reallocation, often through bankruptcy and repurposing of capital goods. It seems that the US was able to have a better reallocation of resources. I am not sure entirely of the mechanism, but at least some of it was allowing some things to fail and some of it might have been the government going in and manually realigning these things (taking over in the short term). It sounded like Europe did not allow for that, either direct intervention or simply allowing things to fail -- the bad businesses limped along as zombies. Europe kind of did the worst of both worlds.
As for the US, it also suggests that the Austrians, and I have heard this, cite our extreme debt, and it keeps growing, as a sign of a reckoning to come. Kind of like one can keep pumping sugar in to deal with sugar lows after a high, but eventually the bill comes due. Keynesians and others seem to view the economy as a short-term adjustable kind of thing, a chemical reaction with just the right reagents producing something wonderful. Austrians view it as a lumbering ecology, with things adapting and to the extent adaptation based on truth is present, it gets better. To the extent that distortions and violence happen, not so good. We shall, unfortunately, probably see soon enough unless AI can make a productivity miracle happen.
No, they don't say that the market is perfect. And if you want a cult, that's the current keynesian economics.
Anyway, I don't see any way around not using math. Because value is subjective and that means it's a ranking system of preferences, not based in nominal values.
You can mathematically analyze subjective rankings. That's not at all a problem for model building.
What makes the Austrian economics "school" a cult is not the complexity of models. It's their rejection of models altogether and a refusal to make testable predictions.
> Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.
This is true for the first foundational courses in micro and macro. The profession has moved beyond this and the last forty plus years of research have been looking at various relaxations of these assumptions.
Even the undergrad is like this. I was shocked to learn it wasn’t a historical study of economic theory and instead a technical course in stats and modeling.
The theory you are discussing (grad micro 101 equilibrium existence) is not actually crazy if you think about what the mathematical assumptions actually imply. Really the economic assumptions boil down to "small changes in prices lead to small changes in demand" and the math is just rigorously defining small in terms of a general topology.
Small price changes don’t necessarily lead to small results. There’s a reason companies advertise 19.99 not 20 which has been experimentally verified many times.
People simply act irrationally, which is a fundamental issue when trying to treat economics as math.
Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend. There are a lot of sound theories about how to deal with discontinuity, and how the problem solves itself when numbers get large enough.
Or think of it like weather and climate: we cannot predict that there will be a thunderstorm on a given day 2 months from now, but we can be fairly confident that in x years, the average global temperature will be y±z°C. Because when you aggregate enough events, statistical effects become dominant.
"But reality is not linear" is not really a gotcha.
> Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend.
At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level.
Hand waving details is fine when discussing with friends, it’s not a sound foundation for serious academic research.
Also, the degree to which the weather is unpredictable 2+ weeks out is somewhat overblown. It generally snows in DC several days a year yet the odds it snows in DC 2 weeks from now is essentially zero not ~4/365. Similarly you can more accurately predict thunderstorms than a pure guess 2 months from now. We may call it climate, but a physical model of earths tilt, prevailing winds, CO2, etc is better than just historic data.
> Hand waving details is fine when discussing with friends, it’s not a sound foundation for serious academic research.
It's how physics worked for hundreds of years. Make a handwavy model, find out it works on some cases but breaks down on others, then make a slightly less handwavy model the next time.
Metallurgy considering atomic structure is a very new concept, and was not needed for the first millenias of metalworking.
The issue with economics is not handwaving, is that models are hard to test due to systems not being well isolated.
The history of physics is the exact opposite of what you say. Models were subject to considerable criticism and refinement on theoretical, philosophical, and aesthetic grounds. Newton did not discover universal gravitation because Kepler's laws broke down. Maxwell did not discover his correction because Ampère's laws broke down. Einstein did not discover relativity because Newtonian mechanics broke down. Investigation proceeded along different lines altogether and was accompanied by a degree of scrutiny not to be characterized as 'handwavy'.
> At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level.
I know, it’s my job. But as much as we like to obsess about the mechanisms for dislocations climbing and solute interactions, nobody cares when they are designing an aircraft. They have macroscopic laws they put in their finite elements code. These are perfectly adequate to describe most known modes of failures of industrial alloys. Nobody is going to model all the atoms in a macroscopic widget, ever. It’s beyond pointless.
Do you have a citation for confidently predicting global temperature (whatever that is) on a climate timeline (10+ years). A study I read showed that all the models from 2000's and 2010's were off by quite a bit.
Falling back to "people are irrational", in the economic sense of rational (ie not having complete, transitive, and reflexive preferences) quickly leads to any economic claim being unfalsifiable.
Biology was forced to deal with the insanity of biochemistry because that’s what is actually happening. Economics can’t get away from the innate complexity of actual humans if it wants to be actually useful for more than just propaganda.
You misunderstand the difficulty. We don't have (and likely won't ever have) the ability to read people's thoughts and say what they were thinking when they made their choices. In order to do any analysis of human choices you must impose assumptions on the process because otherwise you can say that "they were thinking xyz" and there is no way to falsify that.
Economics chooses to impose assumptions that peoples observed choices are a better way to study their behavior than what they say, and so we look at the observable state of the world for an individual economic agent. You can do analysis of people whose preferences are not rational (in the strict mathematical sense that I described above) but you must choose what kind of irrationality they have. And that gives you the ability to assume any results. That isn't any way to do science. Rationality is the worst option except for all the rest as they say.
Rationality isn’t an option because it’s wrong. There’s literally zero reason to invest any time into models using it whatsoever when the opportunity to look for something that actually works exists.
You don’t need to read people’s minds to predict their behavior at sufficient granularity to be useful. Economics is blessed with plenty of opportunities to collect high quality real world data without needing to conduct arbitrary experiments.
How much gas will this specific gas station sell on date X. Build whatever models you want at whatever scale is relevant and they face the brutal truth of a knowable answer to judge them. That’s how science progresses not arbitrary assumptions to make modeling easier.
"Newtonian mechanics isn't an option because it is wrong. There’s literally zero reason to invest any time into models using it whatsoever when the opportunity to look for something that actually works exists."
Do you see the issue here when I frame it this way? The core microeconomic assumption of people having preferences which are complete, reflexive and transitive (these are formal mathematical definitions! They don't require a whole lot to hold!) has been incredibly useful in the 20th and 21st centuries much like understanding Newtonian mechanics was in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Besides this, you are still not engaging with the philosophy of science point that I am making. Because of the fact that humans have this pesky thing called free will, unless we impose some assumptions on their thinking nothing we study about causality in the behavior of humans is falsifiable. Maybe you eat because you feel hungry. Maybe you eat because you worship bread as a god. I fundamentally can't say either way without making assumptions that you likely find unobjectionable.
> Do you see the issue here when I frame it this way?
Honestly no.
Newton mechanics can be accurate to 20 decimal places, that’s currently indistinguishable from reality in relevant and well understood contexts. Making Newtonian Mechanics actually useful.
The core microeconomic assumption is never anywhere close to that accurate. It works except XYZ which doesn’t apply is acceptable, it never works isn’t.
It's fine to want to solve interesting math problems for the sake of it I suppose but they shouldn't be so certain about things when telling politicians what policies will work
Then why aren't all the quant shops snapping them up? It's not like their hiring needs are affected much by changes in the macro economy (except maybe trading volume and liquidity).
Because it's a very different type of math than that used in Quant Finance. Econ PhD programs don't want people with broad math skills, they want people who know the very narrow slice of math needed to solve these very unusual models. Quant Finance mainly uses PDEs and Brownian Motion stuff that all Math and Physics majors learn.
On the other hand Cliff Asness and AQR are perfectly happy to rake in money by using the "dogma" as you describe it to analyze and trade in financial markets.
One of the more disturbing things is that economists both believe in it and don't believe in it.
Like, the standard Arrow Debreu market assumes that you don't carry over money balances from one day to the next, yet economists will vehemently argue in favor of being able to violate Arrow Debreu markets, but the market is in equilibrium anyway.
I just went through the DSGE wiki page [1]. It says the following about the model, which if true, then I can see why it is an completely unserious model.
> Below is an example of the set of assumptions a DSGE is built upon:
> Perfect competition in all markets
> All prices adjust instantaneously
> Rational expectations
> No asymmetric information
> The competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal
> Firms are identical and price takers
> Infinitely lived identical price-taking households
> to which the following frictions are added:
> Distortionary taxes (Labour taxes) – to account for not lump-sum taxation
> Habit persistence (the period utility function depends on a quasi-difference of consumption)
> Adjustment costs on investments – to make investments less volatile
> Labour adjustment costs – to account for costs firms face when changing the level of employment
Are these not the 'friction can be ignored' assumptions of economics? They are, of course, blatantly false. But that doesn't stop such models from effectively modelling real-world behavior.
Granted, I know a slight bit about general equilibrium theory, but nothing about DSGE.
For the unaware - graduate level Economics is nothing like pop Economics, it's essentially an applied math degree. But the math in question is extremely wonky. Mostly using Convex Set Theory and Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem from topology to prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of a general equilibrium solution for a "market" of price-quantity commodity pairs. The assumptions needed to make it work are literally absurd.