Why Are Economists Frequently Surprised by Government Data?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The recent U.S. government economic data revealed a net job increase of only 39,000 in November, surprising economists who had anticipated a much higher figure. This discrepancy raises questions about the reliability of economic predictions, as many economists rely on educated guesses rather than precise models. The discussion highlights the challenges in economics, likening it to astrology due to frequent inaccuracies and a lack of transparency in the models used for predictions. Additionally, the influence of political affiliations on economists' perspectives complicates consensus on economic events. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for clearer communication regarding economic forecasts and the methodologies behind them.
  • #31
snoopies622 said:
Oh, I know. I just said that what you said reminded me of it.

Ok, I get it now. You meant 'fiction' literally as opposed to metaphorically. Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Can you think of a field of study that has more variables, so few constants, and so many manipulative participants?
 
  • #33
No. And yet in principle one should be able to apply the scientific method to it, by isolating variables and looking for correlations. Maybe it just needs another few hundred years.
 
  • #34
snoopies622 said:
No. And yet in principle one should be able to apply the scientific method to it, by isolating variables and looking for correlations. Maybe it just needs another few hundred years.

The scientific method should be applied to health care reform.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
skilgannonau said:
...I've stated this in another post, but unless you a see fundamental breakthrough in economics, economics isn't going to have the same predictive power as there is in physics (or even weather science). At best you're going to have approximations.

Wait... Weather science IS physics. The system is quite complex and nonlinear but nevertheless modeled by physical components which obey laws of physics.

Physicists developed finite element models (sometimes 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 matrices) of some of the Space Shuttle Orbiter subsystems to predict dynamic stresses and strains across the structures during ascent (mechanical vibrations). They at least had the advantage of testing the structures on the ground in order to adjust the models to produce the same vibrational resonance frequencies and other modal parameters. And even after all of that pretesting, the predictions of stresses and strains were in error by around 10% for certain modes of vibration, and in error of over 100% at high frequencies.

Just to make the point that even though F = ma is well established, there is no guarantee that the model for a given physical system will be simple. By the way, physicists don't even try to apply closed form solutions to predict interactions between the very complex molecules.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
15K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 156 ·
6
Replies
156
Views
39K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K