Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Loading...
Most Recent Stories

Prediction Penance

John Cochrane wrote a follow-up post to his recent attack on Keynesian economics in which he clarified some of the views.  I particularly liked this line:

“The basic “trouble with macroeconomics,” circa 2014, is about the same as the “trouble with physics,” circa 1790. We know a lot. But there is so much we don’t know. “

Yes, we do know a lot.  We can understand far more about the operational realities of our monetary system and the financial system than most economists would have us believe. The problem, however, is that many economists are so blinded by their politics that they refuse to look at the world through the prism of operational realities.

For instance:

The last 5 years have been particularly enlightening for macroeconomists because this period has shed light on people who are using flawed understandings of the world. All of the predictions I made during this time were based on my operational understandings of the way the monetary system.  I didn’t inject my personal politics into this.  I simply studied things like QE and fiscal policy inside of the specific macro environment (a deleveraging) and tried to come up with high probability outcomes.  Now, maybe I was lucky, but one thing we know is that John Cochrane predicted USD collapse, high inflation, rising interest rates and a potential debt crisis back in 2011.  So while these predictions don’t necessarily prove that my model of the world is right, they should shed significant doubt on the validity of his model.

I don’t intend to sound like I am beating up on Cochrane’s predictions from 2011. No, I am simply making a point about the importance of having a model that actually reflects our reality. I know we’re all going to be wrong about things at times. I certainly make plenty of mistakes, but we should really embrace these bad predictions – especially when someone’s model of the world predicts that we are at “the brink of disaster”. How else can we learn from mistakes and make progress if we continue to rely on models that produce hugely erroneous predictions?