In
today's FT, David Schofield has a letter on describing what he wants to see from economists. I think that his request could be more generally applied to experts from all fields:
[W]e should demand greater intellectual rigour when shaping and communicating economic policy.
I do not want to hear economists use their professional position to embellish pre-existing ideological, and often alarmist, narratives. I do want quantitative and political economists to deploy their unique tool sets to tell me about the fearsome trade-offs we have to address if we are to continue civilisation’s long march of human progress. I want to hear the language of innovation, uncertainty, optionality and risk, not wearisome political rhetoric and claims of spurious certainty.
Well said!
5 comments:
Your father sets an impressive example. Perhaps the Economist will use him for the model.
BERLIN – This summer has been one of weather-related extremes in Russia, Pakistan, China, Europe, the Arctic – you name it. But does this have anything to do with global warming, and are human emissions to blame?
While it cannot be scientifically proven (or disproven, for that matter) that global warming caused any particular extreme event, we can say that global warming very likely makes many kinds of extreme weather both more frequent and more severe.
See here: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rahmstorf3/English
If their honesty, insight and wisdom were merely one-tenth of their hubris, their usefulness would increase exponentially.
One of the handy phrases frequently used in both economics and climate forecasts is "cannot be discarded". Normally applied to big, improbable, undesirable events.
A new financial slump cannot be discarded. A big increase in inflation/unemployment cannot be discarded. A sea level rise of over 7 metres by 2100 cannot be discarded. The Amazon forest savannised in 20 years by fire, droughts and global warming cannot either be discarded.
Use it frequently. Never mind the probabilities. Your ass is covered, whatever comes.
Economists often seem more confident in untestable ideas than physicists are in theories that have survived every conceivable test.
Post a Comment