I have previously discussed Old Krugman’s argument for the worth of theory, even simplified models. But I wasn’t aware of this example. I don’t even remember how I wound up at that Stephen Gordon post. The short of it is that a meteorologist wanted to know how simple of a model you could use and still get many familiar features of weather on earth. He used “a dish-pan filled with water, placed on a slowly rotating turntable, with an electric heating element bent around the outside of the pan”. And that resulted in “a steady flow near the rim evidently corresponding to the trade winds, constantly shifting eddies reminiscent of temperate-zone storm systems, even a rapidly moving ribbon of water that looked like the recently discovered jet stream”. This despite the reality that weather is a highly complex system, like the economy.
And speaking of economics I like David Glasner’s taking the third option in response to the Keynes vs Hayek debate (I should note I know nothing about Hawtrey and have no opinion on his merits). I expect Hopefully Anonymous would approve as well.
September 9, 2011 at 8:24 am
I’m foggy about macroeconomics despite hanging out online nearly exclusively in the comment section of blogging economists.
My intuitive sense is that best policy lies in the direction of Delong/Romer. But I like robust discussion and nit-picking, particularly if it’s done in good faith rather than to simply muddy the waters.
September 10, 2011 at 8:44 pm
That’s not simulation, that’s illustration. Contrary to what Brian Ferguson implies (“Nonetheless, the model did convey a powerful insight into why the weather system behaves the way it does”), such a thing practically useless and it only gives insights to journalists. It’s great for educational purposes though – that’s exactly the kind of stuff I used to bring to my kids’ middle school for their “science days”.
September 11, 2011 at 8:49 pm
What are the requirements to qualify as a simulation?
September 12, 2011 at 11:38 am
At the very least: a prospect of realistic predictive power.