Um análise do livro “Imperfect Knowledge Economics”, de Roman Frydman e Michael Goldberg, feita pela The Economist, mostra dificuldade de fazer previsão em economia. Para Frydman, aquele que faz previsão usa métodos quantitativos, mas também a intuição e o julgamento. "Ele não é um cientista", afirma Frydman, e este fato tem sido ignorado pelos economistas, que perseguem a previsão perfeita, apesar de toda prova em contrário de que ela não existe. Frydman e Goldberg destacam o desempenho das agências de ratings no mercado de títulos versus o CDO. O desempenho no primeiro é melhor pois se usa um modelo matemático em conjunto com o julgamento de especialista, enquanto o segundo só trabalha com modelo quantitativo. A reportagem encontra-se a seguir:
A new fashion in modelling
Nov 22nd 2007 - From The Economist print edition
What to do when you don't know everything
“THE forecaster is like an entrepreneur,” says Roman Frydman. “He uses quantitative methods, but he also studies history, and relies on intuition and judgment. He is not a scientist.” According to the New York University economist, this fact has been lost on contemporary economists, who continue to pursue the perfect economic forecast despite abundant evidence that it does not, and cannot, exist. They dismiss their repeated failures in much the same way that self-styled reformers in Mr Frydman's native Poland once insisted that socialism was great, but just needed to be carried out better.
In the economics profession the leading inheritors of this communistic mindset, says Mr Frydman, are the proponents of rational-expectations theory, which assumes that the economy and the individuals within it act with perfect foresight. Yet he is equally critical of the more fashionable school of behavioural economics, or at least those of its practitioners who claim that although people are irrational, their irrationality can be modelled so precisely that the future can be forecast with great precision.
In a new book, “Imperfect Knowledge Economics”, written with Michael Goldberg of the University of New Hampshire, Mr Frydman sets out an alternative approach to prediction, in which the forecaster recognises that his model will inevitably be less than perfect. Their work has received glowing praise from Nobel-prize-winning economists such as Kenneth Arrow and Edmund Phelps, who wrote the introduction to the book—though it is unlikely to have gone down so well with Robert Lucas, who won the Nobel for his work on rational expectations.
Continua em Finanças Comportamentais
A new fashion in modelling
Nov 22nd 2007 - From The Economist print edition
What to do when you don't know everything
“THE forecaster is like an entrepreneur,” says Roman Frydman. “He uses quantitative methods, but he also studies history, and relies on intuition and judgment. He is not a scientist.” According to the New York University economist, this fact has been lost on contemporary economists, who continue to pursue the perfect economic forecast despite abundant evidence that it does not, and cannot, exist. They dismiss their repeated failures in much the same way that self-styled reformers in Mr Frydman's native Poland once insisted that socialism was great, but just needed to be carried out better.
In the economics profession the leading inheritors of this communistic mindset, says Mr Frydman, are the proponents of rational-expectations theory, which assumes that the economy and the individuals within it act with perfect foresight. Yet he is equally critical of the more fashionable school of behavioural economics, or at least those of its practitioners who claim that although people are irrational, their irrationality can be modelled so precisely that the future can be forecast with great precision.
In a new book, “Imperfect Knowledge Economics”, written with Michael Goldberg of the University of New Hampshire, Mr Frydman sets out an alternative approach to prediction, in which the forecaster recognises that his model will inevitably be less than perfect. Their work has received glowing praise from Nobel-prize-winning economists such as Kenneth Arrow and Edmund Phelps, who wrote the introduction to the book—though it is unlikely to have gone down so well with Robert Lucas, who won the Nobel for his work on rational expectations.
Continua em Finanças Comportamentais
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário