Ask a Trained Parrot

Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.

Related Post Roulette

6 Responses

  1. Michael Drew says:

    Much of what government does is about signaling and allocating status, not about doing any actual good. But to get the process started, we have to signal the professionalism and the integrity of the government — its objectivity; its science. If you can’t do that, then it really is just transparently playing favorites. And if there is any profession that exists solely to achieve the task of enhancing government credibility, macroeconomics might just be it. (Social workers are a close contender, for those still hankering after family policy.)

    You just arrive here from no place. If the point of the post is just more about the perfidy of government and how it co-opts a (struggling) academic profession, great. But you say the post is about macroeconomics. Last time I checked, Goldman Sachs employs a number of macroeconomists, and pays them handsomely. You don’t seem to even be attempting to treat your subject in anything like completeness, even for a blog post. Your contention is really that macroeconomics exists only to provide a fig leaf for government’s acts of favortism in the market?Report

  2. Francis says:

    From what I read of the paper (and most of it is way over my head), the modelling fails in large part because it gives such an accurate picture of the present as to change policy.

    I came up with this from the following quote taken from the Abstract: “In the 1997-2006 period, in particular, in?flation has been unforecastable by any method but this is in line with the standard New Keynesian model prediction that infl?ation will not be systematically varying when monetary policy responds to expected in?flation aggressively.”

    If anticipated inflation is essentially zero, then the fluctuations around the zero point will be random (and thus impossible to predict). But if the policy goal is to keep inflation at zero, then the policy response will be predictable and non-random.

    So the better question is to what purpose are these models being put? Is it to pull out the necessary data, as to drive a short-term policy response? It appears that the answer is yes, and that the models are useful for that purpose.

    Given the Great Recession, the even better question is to ask where are the larger scale models that would have persuaded policy makers (and U Chicago macroeconomists) of the existence of the bubble.

    Perhaps hoping for such things is naive; as we have seen in the debate over AGW, any model that results in an unpleasant policy will be attacked as unproveable, biased or “only a model”.Report