Plausible-sounding economics: Not Necessarily Not Wrong
I don't usually just post links to another blawg...but...
A simple Coasian test for some kinds of economic bollocks, over at Crooked Timber, is worth reading.
Daniel goes through a fascinating (to me) exploration of the assumptions in a Steven Landsburg "economics" article on Slate, in which Steven uses economics-esque reasoning and some plausible-sounding arguments to come to a conclusion which is what he calls "counterintuitive" and which everyone else calls things like "wrong" and "morally stupid" and "idiotic" and "obviously calling for some serious mockery."
Steven's article, which I decline to link to directly, examined what people would pay in advance to avoid the risk of being taken off a ventilator because they couldn't afford to pay, and concluded that the poor would not want to pay, and that therefore they should be taken off ventilators if they could not pay - it's moral!
Daniel's thoughtful analysis includes working Steven's numbers a little more carefully, and pointing out some hidden assumptions. Assumptions which, if false, mean there's no economic analysis that can be performed. Which is to say, unless certain felicity conditions are met, you aren't doing economics at all, you're using economic tools or reasoning or rhetoric on an area where the values are undefined. That is, you're blowing smoke.
Another case where, I would argue, plausible should not be confused with "correct."
This has been another in a continuing series of "Plausible, But Wrong" posts. Er, the subject is plausible. Not the post. The posts are implausible. Right. Onward and ever upward.
A simple Coasian test for some kinds of economic bollocks, over at Crooked Timber, is worth reading.
Daniel goes through a fascinating (to me) exploration of the assumptions in a Steven Landsburg "economics" article on Slate, in which Steven uses economics-esque reasoning and some plausible-sounding arguments to come to a conclusion which is what he calls "counterintuitive" and which everyone else calls things like "wrong" and "morally stupid" and "idiotic" and "obviously calling for some serious mockery."
Steven's article, which I decline to link to directly, examined what people would pay in advance to avoid the risk of being taken off a ventilator because they couldn't afford to pay, and concluded that the poor would not want to pay, and that therefore they should be taken off ventilators if they could not pay - it's moral!
Daniel's thoughtful analysis includes working Steven's numbers a little more carefully, and pointing out some hidden assumptions. Assumptions which, if false, mean there's no economic analysis that can be performed. Which is to say, unless certain felicity conditions are met, you aren't doing economics at all, you're using economic tools or reasoning or rhetoric on an area where the values are undefined. That is, you're blowing smoke.
Another case where, I would argue, plausible should not be confused with "correct."
This has been another in a continuing series of "Plausible, But Wrong" posts. Er, the subject is plausible. Not the post. The posts are implausible. Right. Onward and ever upward.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Plausible-sounding economics: Not Necessarily Not Wrong
- Easier to be plausible, than to be right
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 8:46pm
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.