Home » Posts tagged 'economic models'

Tag Archives: economic models

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Why Economic Models Neglect Energy, and Why That’s a Problem 

Importance of Model Building in Economics

IMPORTANCE OF MODEL BUILDING IN ECONOMICS

In the natural sciences, a laboratory experiment can isolate various elements and their movements. There is no equivalent in the discipline of economics. The employment of model building is an attempt to produce a laboratory where controlled experiments can be conducted.

The idea of having such a laboratory is very appealing to economists and politicians. Once the model is built and endorsed as a good replica of the economy, politicians can evaluate the outcomes of various policies.

This, it is argued, enhances the efficiency of government policies and thus leads to a better and more prosperous economy.

It is also suggested that the model can serve as a referee in assessing the validity of various economic ideas. The other purpose of a model is to provide an indication regarding the future.

By means of mathematical and statistical methods, a model builder establishes relationships between various economic variables.

For example, personal consumer outlays are related to personal disposable income and interest rates, while fixed capital spending is explained by the past stock of capital, interest rates, and economic activity. A collection of such various estimated relations—i.e., equations—constitutes an econometric model.

A comparison of the goodness of fit of the dynamic simulation versus the actual data is an important criterion in assessing the reliability of a model. (In a static simulation, the equations of the model are solved using actual lagged variables. In a dynamic simulation, the equations are solved by employing calculated from the model-lagged variables).

The final test of the model is its response to a policy variable change, such as an increase in taxes or a rise in government outlays. By means of a qualitative assessment, a model builder decides whether the response is reasonable or not. Once the model is successfully constructed, it is ready to be used.

Is the mathematical method valid in economics?

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why Models Fail

 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Did AIG use the Black-Scholes Model and that is what created the crisis again in 2007?

WJ

ANSWER: No. It’s my understanding that AIG developed different models, they called a “Value-at-Risk Model,” (VaR) which used a binomial-expansion-technique to start valuing their positions. I believe the original model was developed at Moody’s. However, like the Black-Scholes Model, it too lacked depth. In model development, it is extremely complex.

Virtually every model created tends to be predominately flat with a minimum of dynamic variables lacking understanding of TIME. Then the testing period lacks the database reflecting all conditions. In the case of Black-Scholes, they back-tested only with data to 1971. If I created a model with only data from 2009 forward, then it would be biased to presume a bull market is normal in the stock market.

The Value at risk (VaR) model is a measure of the risk of investments. It estimates how much a set of investments might lose, given normal market conditions, in a set time period such as a day. VaR is typically used by firms and regulators in the financial industry to gauge the number of assets needed to cover possible losses. It obviously failed in 2007-2009 because once again it was not a “normal market condition” for it fails utterly to understand CONTAGION when sound assets are sold to raise cash for other assets that collapse. The assumption of the model is its own nemesis.

For example, if a portfolio of stocks has a one-day 5% VaR of $10 million, this actually means that there is a 5% probability that the portfolio will fall in value by more than $1o million over a one-day period if there is no trading.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why Oil Prices Can’t Bounce Very High; Expect Deflation Instead

Why Oil Prices Can’t Bounce Very High; Expect Deflation Instead

Economists have given us a model of how prices and quantities of goods are supposed to interact.

Figure 1. From Wikipedia: The price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D). The diagram shows a positive shift in demand from D1 to D2, resulting in an increase in price (P) and quantity sold (Q) of the product.

Unfortunately, this model is woefully inadequate. It sort of works, until it doesn’t. If there is too little a product, higher prices and substitution are supposed to fix the problem. If there is too much, prices are supposed to fall, causing the higher-priced producers to drop out of the system.

This model doesn’t work with oil. If prices drop, as they have done since mid-2014, businesses don’t drop out. They often try to pump more. The plan is to try to make up for inadequate prices by increasing the volume of extraction. Of course, this doesn’t fix the problem. The hidden assumption is, of course, that eventually oil prices will again rise. When this happens, the expectation is that oil businesses will be able to make adequate profits. It is hoped that the system can again continue as in the past, perhaps at a lower volume of oil extraction, but with higher oil prices.

I doubt that this is what really will happen. Let me explain some of the issues involved.

[1] The economy is really a much more interlinked system than Figure 1 makes it appear.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

“Deeply-Flawed Western Economic Models” Are Undermining The Worst Global Recovery In History

“Deeply-Flawed Western Economic Models” Are Undermining The Worst Global Recovery In History

With stocks at record highs, seemingly proving that everything must be awesome in the world, Chris Watling, chief executive of Longview Economics, shocked CNBC on Friday by reminding them that “this is undoubtedly the lowest quality economic recovery we have seen globally… full stop.”

The reason is simple, Watling continued,

“the economic model is deeply flawed and the system in the west is deeply flawed, particularly in the English speaking part of the world and it needs to change.”

The Longview Economics CEO explained that a debt-laden global economy could be vulnerable to looming interest rate hikes because,

“This is a world that is more indebted than it was before the global financial crisis in 2007, there’s no productivity growth, asset prices are very elevated, a lot of debt that corporates have built up has gone to share buy backs (and) the number of ‘zombie companies’ has doubled since 2007.”

Watling’s warnings confirm bond-king Bill Gross’ recent warning that the course of global central banks toward tightening policy could be detrimental for the economic recovery. He argued that raising interest rates would increase the cost of short-term debt that corporations and individuals currently hold.

When asked whether an imperfect system constituted a clear and present danger for the financial markets, Watling replied:

“Whatever you want to call it doesn’t really matter but these sorts of things always unwind when you tighten money. The problem is judging what is tight? And that is sort of the million dollar question.”

Will that pain begin in October?

Feudalism and the “Algorithmic Economy”

Feudalism and the “Algorithmic Economy”

Using AI and algorithms to return to feudal economic models

For the sake of this essay, feudal economic models imply the idea that a very tiny segment of the society is fantastically rich while the bulk of society works hard, has few choices about the work they do, and tend to be poorly compensated for their efforts.

feu·dal·ism: noun, historical

  1. the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

Welcome to the Algorithmic Economy, a future which uses machines to determine how effective you can be and how little they can pay you in the process.

There are no unions in this economy. There are no bosses to complain to. There are no people you can ask for redress. Because in this economy, the people doing the labor are considered the least important part of the machine and it’s best if they never communicate with someone living if it can be helped.

This is just like something out of a dark and dystopian science fiction novel, except its likely happening to you, right now. If it isn’t, unless you are very fortunate, it will be, soon. I write about the near-future in my speculative fiction. Often these are my most unpopular stories because they paint technology in a less-than-ideal light.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why Energy-Economy Models Produce Overly Optimistic Indications

Why Energy-Economy Models Produce Overly Optimistic Indications

Below are the slides I used, and a little explanation. A PDF of my presentation can be downloaded at this link: The Mirror Image Problem.

Slide 1

FCAS stands for “Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society”; MAAA stands for “Member of the American Academy of Actuaries.” Actuaries tend not to be interested in academic degrees.

Slide 2

I try to explain how a more complex situation can be hidden in plain sight.

Slide 3

It is not obvious that both the needs of energy producers and energy consumers should be considered.

Slide 4

If we look back at what the discussions of the time were, we can see when remarks were that prices were too high for consumers, and when they were too low for producers. See for example my article, Oil Supply Limits and the Continuing Financial Crisis and my post, Beginning of the End? Oil Companies Cut Back on Spending. This latter article shows that companies were already cutting back on spending in 2013, when prices appeared to be high, because even at a $100+ per barrel level, they still were not high enough for producers.

Slide 5

Oil companies tend to extract the cheapest and easiest to extract oil first. Eventually, they find that they need to move on to more expensive to extract fields–even with technology enhancements, costs are rising.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The most important and misleading assumption in the world

THE MOST IMPORTANT AND MISLEADING ASSUMPTION IN THE WORLD

Part one of this blog post explained how macroeconomic models are flawed in a fundamental way.

These models are coupled to models of the Earth’s natural systems as Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that are used to inform climate change policy. Most IAM results presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports show climate mitigation costs as trivial compared to gains in economic growth.

The referred to “elephant in the room” (from part one of this series) is the fact that economic growth is usually simply assumed to occur.  No matter what the quantity or rate of investment in the energy system or the level of climate damages, the results indicate that economy will always grow. This defies intuition, and begs the question: If the costs of climate mitigation really are so small, then why is there so much disagreement over a low-carbon transition?

One way to explain the problem is via a term called “total factor productivity,” or TFP. TFP is the Achilles Heel of macroeconomics, and why no one talks about the aforementioned elephant with the exposed heel in the macroeconomics classroom.

Essentially economic output, or GDP, is usually modeled as being dependent upon the amount of labor in the workforce, the amount of capital (e.g., factories, machines, computers, buildings), and TFP.

TFP can be understood as all of the reasons why the economy grows that are not already characterized by the quantity of labor and capital.  In statistical terms it’s called a “residual,” or the amount unexplained by an assumed underlying equation of economic growth.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why the Theory of Money Does Not Work

Why the Theory of Money Does Not Work

Taxes

QUESTION:  We see that the United States can borrow all it needs at minimal cost and we also see that we’re getting a big boost from falling energy/commodity prices, to levels we have not seen in some 15 years my “economic model” — which is not a computer model but is certainly scientific in nature — tells me that we will be humming along pretty nicely for quite a long while, minimum 5 years maybe much longer, given these two variables do you see anything on the horizon that will knock us off this “steady state” and quite favorable situation?

TP

Tax-Curve

ANSWER: You concept of the economy is very limited and is too influenced by the concept of the quantity of money/Austrian School. This is one-dimensional. Taxes play a huge role and provides the source of DEFLATION. If I give you $100 and then tax you $90, just how much did I really give you? The middle class is shrinking and they claim the 1% are making too much. Is that really the problem? No. The problem is the 40% (government) is broke and consuming a steady increase in the proportion of everyone’s income. Government produces nothing. It lives off of what everyone else produces. The more it grows, the lower the real economic growth.

TAX-CYC

You are only looking at the total aggregate. You assume simply increasing the quantity of money will produce inflation. That theory has been proven wrong constantly throughout the course of history. You must look at the growth of government and the larger it grows the lower the economic growth. Look at the City of Detroit. When more than 50% of its taxes went to pensions, it could no longer function to maintain the cost of government to operate currently and collapsed as those who could be taxes migrated from the city.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Garbage In Garbage Out Economics

Garbage In Garbage Out Economics

“On two occasions I have been asked, “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine the wrong figures, will the right answers come out? …I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” – Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher.”

Charles_Babbage_1860The late Mr. Charles Babbage (1791-1871), an English polymath credited with inventing the first mechanical computer
Image via The Illustrated London News

 Crunching Data to Fix Prices

The fundamental problem facing today’s economy is the flagrant contempt by governments the world over for the free exchange of goods and services and private stewardship of property.  Perhaps it is power and control governments are after.  Maybe they believe they are improving the economy and making the world a better place for all.

No one really knows for sure.  But what is lucidly clear is the muddled disorder modern day economic policies have wrought upon us.  You can hardly enter into a transaction without a cluster of intervention mucking with the price of payment.

Taxes, tariffs, wage laws, and subsidies.  These all impact prices.  But the main culprit affecting prices and trade are central bank interventions into money and credit markets.  Relentless actions to control the economy by manipulating money and credit stand the price of everything else on end.

Certainly, government intervention into the U.S. economy is much looser than a Soviet style command and control system.  But it does share a common refrain.  Price fixing is central to its operation.

The Soviets, armed with their Five-Year Plans and the Theory of Productive Forces, deliberately directed how much wheat should be planted and how much a potato should cost.  Conversely, the U.S. approach is mostly hidden from the short sighted view of the average lay person.  The Federal Reserve allows the government to bypass the nuisance of tinkering with individual prices…though they still do it through subsidies and appropriations.

 

5 year plan

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Is the slowdown in productivity growth a result of energy costs?

Is the slowdown in productivity growth a result of energy costs?

Slowing productivity growth in the United States has been in the news in recent months. It has become a concern to policymakers because they believe it is one of the primary contributors to a middle-class economic squeeze according to the annual report of the White House Council of Economic Advisors.

Simply put, productivity growth refers to the growth in economic output per worker or more precisely, per hour of work. When this growth slows, the potential for real wage increases diminishes since the growth in wages typically reflects the ability of workers to create more output per unit of time.

To the obstensibly naive observer the following idea may seem a plausible explanation: Higher-cost energy inputs into the production of goods and services reduce productivity growth because the economic output per dollar of energy consumed declines. And, though energy inputs aren’t the only thing to consider, they are important. The high energy prices of the last decade or so may be, in part, responsible for low productivity growth. (Conversely, low energy costs would imply more output per dollar of energy consumed.)

But strangely, almost all economic models for productivity consider only so-called “tangible” factors, that is, labor and capital. In the bizarro world of modern economics, energy and materials are not considered “tangible.”

Now, the way in which that productivity growth which is attributable to “technological advances” is typically calculated is to add up contributions to productivity growth from labor and capital (machines, buildings, vehicles, tools of any kind) and then subtract this sum from the known amount of total productivity growth. What is left is the so-called “residual” which is presumed to result from “technological advances” caused by increases in human knowledge. These advances and the increases in capital per worker are assumed to be the drivers of productivity growth.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Steve Keen: The Deliberate Blindness Of Our Central Planners

Steve Keen: The Deliberate Blindness Of Our Central Planners

Choosing to ignore the largest risks

The models we use for decision making determine the outcomes we experience. So, if our models are faulty or flawed, we make bad decisions and suffer bad outcomes.

Professor, author and deflationist Steve Keen joins us this week to discuss the broken models our central planners are using to chart the future of the world economy.

How broken are they? Well for starters, the models major central banks like the Federal Reserve use don’t take into account outstanding debt, or absolute levels of money supply. It’s why they were completely blindsided by the 2008 crash, and will be similarly gob-smacked when the next financial crisis manifests.

And within this week’s podcast is a hidden treat. Steve’s character exposition on Greek Financial Minister Yanis Varoufakis. Steve has known Varoufakis personally for over 25 years, and is able to offer a window into his constitution, how his mind thinks, and what he’s currently going through in his battle with the Troika for Greece’s future.

 

…click on the above link to listen to the podcast…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress