Home > The Economics Profession > A model makers’ Hippocratic Oath

A model makers’ Hippocratic Oath

from Edward Fullbrook

Recently an article by Emanuel Derman and Paul Wlmott appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek which begins:

Whirring away at the center of the mortgage meltdown that prompted the current crisis were those theoretical constructs known as financial models. As bankers sliced and securitized mortgages, traders and investors relied on the models to calculate the bundled loans’ values and risks—risks they failed to predict.

What went wrong? As modelers, we see the fantasy of perfection as the fatal flaw seducing both developers and users.

Their article, which is one place where DeLong and Co. could begin their rehabilitation, concludes with “a model makers’ Hippocratic Oath” 

• I will remember that I didn’t make the world and that it doesn’t satisfy my equations.

• Though I will use models boldly to estimate value, I will not be overly impressed by mathematics.

• I will never sacrifice reality for elegance without explaining why I have done so. Nor will I give the people who use my model false comfort about its accuracy. Instead, I will make explicit its assumptions and oversights.

• I understand that my work may have enormous effects on society and the economy, many of them beyond my comprehension.

About these ads
  1. paul davidson
    February 26, 2011 at 3:58 pm | #1

    if the economy is a nonergodic stochastic process, then there is no statistcally reliable method to predict the future.I have been saying this since 1983 but none of my professional colleague –except Doug North, John Hicks and Bob Solow, has taken me seriously.

    Paul Davidson

  2. February 26, 2011 at 4:42 pm | #2

    This gives models way too much credit. There were panics, crashes, and depressions in the 1800s long before models, and can we blame model makers for the Great Depression? The problem is that most economists, hence everyone else, have not understood the business cycle. A zero price of land would eliminate dysfunctional real estate speculation and all the dynamite derivatives on mortgaged land value.

  3. February 28, 2011 at 3:36 pm | #3

    “..if the economy is a nonergodic stochastic process, then there is no statistcally reliable method to predict the future.”

    Have any of you read Fred Harrison’s 2005 book ‘Boom Bust – House Prices, Banking and the Depression of 2010′?

  4. s h a r o n
    March 1, 2011 at 2:59 pm | #4

    Dodson’s review of Harrison’s 2005 book was excellent…
    But why do I see nowhere among/between “economists” any discussion/consideration of birth rate? Why do people have more children than they can possibly afford to feed…is that a religious issue; or is there an assumption that more children will increase the security of the parents (an older, more agrarian assumption, I believe)?

  5. March 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm | #5

    In economies with massive poverty, children are a source of cheap labor and old-age security. Some of the children die young, so having many children raises the probability that some will survive to provide for them when they are old. Even in cities, children provide income by peddling goods, begging, and stealing, and the marginal cost of raising them is low, basically some extra corn and beans. The best remedy for population growth is better economic opportunities and property rights for women, which raises the opportunity cost of children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,287 other followers