Prevod Romerja v ljudski jezik

Ta zadeva najbrž zanima 100 ali 200 ljudi na svetu. Ima pa lahko velike posledice za razvoj makroekonomske teorije. Paul Romer je pred časom naredil velik eksces, križarski pohod z zapisi o “mathiness” (matematičnost) proti zlorabi matematike v ideološke namene. Romer dokazuje, da so Lucas & co. iz freshwater ekonomske šole (Chicago + Minneapolis) nategnili matematiko oziroma da matematični zapisi v modelih ne ustrezajo verbalnemu opisu modelov.   Če ste slučajno spremljali zapise, ki jih tukaj objavljam o tem, ste morda imeli problem z razumevanjem, kajti Romerjev jezik kljub blogovskemu formatu ostaja akademski. Noah Smith je naredil hvalevreden poskus “prevoda Romerja v ljudski jezik“.

I love what Paul Romer is doing on his blog. It’s great to see someone recounting the old 80s/90s macro debates, and criticizing the “freshwater” folks, who is not a “Keynesian”. I mean, Romer was in the thick of it all. He got his PhD from Chicago in 1983, and Lucas was his advisor! Plus he’s been working in macro for decades. If Romer doesn’t know what was up with the Macro Wars of the 80s and 90s, nobody does. And he’s telling it like he sees it and pulling no punches. As The Dude would say, that’s far out.

The problem is that Romer’s writing style is not exactly ideal for what he’s doing. He’s writing blog posts like academic papers – very careful to specify definitions, cover all bases, and speak in a dry, neutral tone. That makes sense when you’re writing a paper, because you’re writing to a highly selective audience – i.e., the tiny handful of people in the world who are specialized enough to care about your research topic, and experienced enough to know all the background. It also makes sense because of the way papers get published – it’s a long process, and you can’t easily go back and change things, write addenda, write quick follow-ups, respond to arguments point-by-point, etc. Blogging is a whole different animal. Romer could get his message across more effectively, I think, if he would just take greater advantage of the format.

V nadaljevanju si preberite Smithov “prevod Romerja v ljudski jezik”. Prevod ni najboljši. V nekaterih delih je bil Noah preveč površen ali prekratek in je izpustil glavno sporočilo Romerja, toda v osnovi je “prevod” koristen za neakademske ekonomiste.

Bodite pozorni predvsem na pasus, kjer Romer kritizira predpostavke Lucas-Mollovega modela glede endogene rasti. Gre za matematično predpostavko, ki naj bi zagotavljala, da je v času nič na voljo že vso znanje na tem svetu. Toda ko čas začne teči, distribucija produktivnosti gre spet nazaj v izhodišče in v nekaj mikrosekundah človeštvo odkrije neskončno mnogo novih stvari. Gre za tipičen problem “matematičnosti”, natega, ki ga pa Lucas & Moll ne pojasnita. Raziskovalci, ki se s tem ukvarjajo, to poznajo, vendar se jim takšna nerealistična in matematično napačna interpretacija zdi povsem normalna, saj “vsi delajo tako“. In prav to je predmet Romerjevega križarskega pohoda.

Preberite Smitov “prevod”

%d bloggers like this: