Why Are Economists Frequently Surprised by Government Data?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the frequent discrepancies between economists' predictions and actual government economic data releases, particularly regarding job growth figures. Participants explore the reliability of economic forecasting, the methodologies used by economists, and the implications of these predictions in the context of media reporting.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the predictive accuracy of economists, comparing economics to astrology in terms of reliability.
  • Others argue that the media often misrepresents economists' predictions by using vague terms like "economists were surprised," suggesting a need for more precise language that reflects the nature of the predictions.
  • A participant notes that economists typically provide educated guesses based on consensus, with the expectation that job growth would be around the replacement rate of 130,000 new jobs, but actual figures can vary significantly.
  • There is a suggestion that economists would benefit from presenting predictions as ranges rather than single numbers, which could better capture uncertainty.
  • Some participants inquire about the specific models used by economists for predictions, drawing parallels to weather forecasting and expressing interest in understanding these methodologies.
  • One participant highlights the complexity of economic modeling, noting the influence of various unpredictable factors, including public sentiment and political affiliations, on economic outcomes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is a lack of clarity and precision in how economists communicate their predictions, but there is no consensus on the reliability of economic forecasting or the appropriateness of current methodologies.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the absence of specific economic models referenced by participants, the variability in predictions based on differing methodologies, and the influence of political beliefs on economic interpretations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying economics, media reporting on economic data, or individuals curious about the complexities of economic forecasting and its implications.

  • #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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 156 ·
6
Replies
156
Views
40K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K