Home > Uncategorized > Chicago economics — in praise of superficiality

Chicago economics — in praise of superficiality

from Lars Syll

igTo observe that economics is based on a superficial view of individual and social behaviour does not seem to me to be much of an insight. I think it is exactly this superficiality that gives economics much of the power that it has. Its ability to predict human behaviour without knowing very much about the make up and lives of the people whose behaviour we are trying to understand.

Robert Lucas

The purported strength of Chicago — New Classical — macroeconomics is that it has firm anchorage in preference-based microeconomics, and especially that the decisions are taken by inter-temporal utility maximizing ‘forward-looking’ individuals.

To some of us, however, this has come at too high a price. The almost quasi-religious insistence that macroeconomics has to have microfoundations — without ever presenting neither ontological nor epistemological justifications for this claim — has put a blind eye to the weakness of the whole enterprise of trying to depict a complex economy based on an all-embracing representative actor equipped with superhuman knowledge, forecasting abilities and forward-looking rational expectations.

That anyone should take that kind of stuff seriously is totally and unbelievably ridiculous. Or as Robert Solow has it:

4703325Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. The last thing I want to do with him is to get involved in a technical discussion of cavalry tactics at the battle of Austerlitz. If I do that, I’m getting tacitly drawn into the game that he is Napoleon. Now, Bob Lucas and Tom Sargent like nothing better than to get drawn into technical discussions, because then you have tacitly gone along with their fundamental assumptions; your attention is attracted away from the basic weakness of the whole story. Since I find that fundamental framework ludicrous, I respond by treating it as ludicrous – that is, by laughing at it – so as not to fall into the trap of taking it seriously and passing on to matters of technique.

Robert Solow

  1. Ken Zimmerman
    April 11, 2020 at 2:04 pm

    This is nonsense. People in everyday life do not always pursue what they prefer. Often they don’t even know what they prefer. The same in the case for maximizing their utility. Even if they can recognize what their utility is. Finally, humans look to the future and the past. Often using one to make judgments and take actions about the other. These “theorists” must be talking about aliens. They obviously have less than no knowledge of humans.

  2. April 11, 2020 at 3:29 pm

    “Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that” “The almost quasi-religious insistence that macroeconomics has to have microfoundations”. “Since I find that fundamental framework ludicrous, I [will] respond by treating it as ludicrous – that is, by laughing at it [Lars’ ignorant presumption of the meaning of ‘religion’ “without ever presenting either ontological or epistemological justifications for his claim”] – so as not to fall into the trap of taking it seriously [when] passing on to matters of technique”.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.