[Discussion] Recession forum?

Time Magazine

Hi all,

I think there's a little bit of discontent round these here parts of late. This forum was initially set-up as a "high-level" board, where the posters would discuss advances in economic theory and that kind of thing. The move to the Soc category has greatly increased the traffic and the number of threads about less academic, day-to-day type discussion.

I think both groups should be accomodated, but I see some friction arising between people who don't know what they're talking about and people who know too much about what they're talking about :pac:.

What would ye think about setting up a Recession sub-forum for all the day-to-day threads and a seperate Economics forum for discussions about heterogeneous treatment effects?

Économiste Monétaire

No

It is needed, a lot. Nice one.

r3nu4l

Why not have an 'Economy' forum and an 'Economic theory' forum?
I think that 'Recession' while certainly current and topical would be a bit limiting.

Or we could have two forums, 'Economic theory' and 'Boom & Bust'

Time Magazine

No

r3nu4l wrote: »

Why not have an 'Economy' forum and an 'Economic theory' forum?

A very good suggestion, probably better than mine.

By the way folks, I have no power to make forums so it won't be a case of taking the result of the winner of the poll and that'll be that. That said, it's quite likely that the admins would make a forum if requested.

As always, it would be good to hear why people would be against this as well.

P. Breathnach

I would feel left out!

I don't want to get heavily involved in the recession moanfest, especially when it evolves into bashing various social groupings, and looking for "solution" models that are tailored not to cost the particular poster anything. So a forum for that stuff would be fine by me: I could simply stay out of it.

But I am not an academic economist. I'm not profoundly interested in advances in economic theory (not totally uninterested, just not profoundly interested). What does interest is the economics of public issues -- things like reflection on the economic consequences of political decisions.

And that's a problem: most of the important politcal decisions in the short and medium terms will be recession-related. How can you filter discussion into one forum or the other?

It's a lot to ask: how about some tougher moderatorship?

P. Breathnach

Between the time I started thinking and the time I posted, the discussion moved on.

Is there consensus on what the problem is?

thebman

Similar setup to politics would do. An Economics forum and a subforum for Economics Theory.

the word Theory will keep people that don't know what their talking about it (I'd hope) like in politics. I've never gone into Political Theory.

Good idea - I think its needed.

Also judos for the Commodore reference, that brings back happy memories!!

Can Cult just symlink the new forum to AH??

nesf

No

I'm not sure if it's an academic vs day to day divide that you want but a serious versus non-serious divide to put it more arrogantly.

Most of the day to day stuff can be discussed in Politics anyway though. I'd say move the forum to Sci and moderate it harshly.

RedPlanet

Commodore 64's 'Leaderboard'

Would this mean that threads like "Rate of Mortgage lending *growth* at lowest level" , would be put under the proposed "Recession" forum?
I don't understand the need for a new forum, Recessions come from Economics.
Maybe have a forum for Economic Theory, or Economic Academia but at first read, this sounds like an attempt to wall-off the "bad news" threads.

SkepticOne

I would go with the economy/economics theory split. Maybe make the economics theory a sub-forum of the economy forum.

SkepticOne

thebman wrote: »

Similar setup to politics would do. An Economics forum and a subforum for Economics Theory.

the word Theory will keep people that don't know what their talking about it (I'd hope) like in politics. I've never gone into Political Theory.

Makes a lot of sense.

leninbenjamin

No

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not profoundly interested in advances in economic theory

in fairness that's what this forum is here for, whereas a lot of the discussions here lately would be more suited to politics or AH.

a subforum for theory would be nice though.

I also agree with the suggestions that more moderators are needed. the nature of this forum i think means the discussions need more intervention to keep them within the scope of the forum than others (similar to the problems in politics if you get me).

Économiste Monétaire

No

'Economic Theory' is too narrow to assign to the forum, in my opinion. It leaves out applied economics. That name gives me the idea of, "this is where I can ask about indifference curves." I think nesf sums it up pretty well: the serious and not so serious divide. For example, someone asking how banks effect the money supply, someone else asking how they "****ed it all up." I really don't like the idea of formal economic thought and approach to issues being the sub-forum here. I actually wouldn't bother to post if it was a sub-forum to the random idiocy forum, to be blunt.

SkepticOne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

: the serious and not so serious divide. For example, someone asking how banks effect the money supply, someone else asking how they "****ed it all up." I really don't like the idea of formal economic thought and approach to issues being the sub-forum here. I actually wouldn't bother to post if it was a sub-forum to the random idiocy forum, to be blunt.

Both of those questions are serious. The second one is not phrased in economic language but the failure of banks and the banking system is an economic issue. There are serious questions to be addressed here. If you don't want to deal with them then the subforum is a good idea, imo.

jayok

Commodore 64's 'Leaderboard'

I can understand the concern about the amount of relevant traffic, but I'm not sure of benefit of providing a split in the forum.

While I accept that there are fewer knowledgeable posters than lay-folk, does a relatively low traffic forum need another sub-forum? (BTW I'm a lay-person here). I am interested in the economic side of things and can ask fundamental silly questions but this is a public forum and you can only expect the high and low level together. A seperate forum for 'experts' seems a little elitist.

FWIW - I answered "no" to the poll. This was not to suggest high-level discussions cannot take place in a seperate forum but that does the forum really need another sub-forum?

Time Magazine

No

To try and guide the discussion here: the results of the poll suggest that I wasn't not crazy in thinking the current setup isn't optimal, but the discussion suggests an elitist sub-forum mightn't be the best either.

Any suggestions for a compromise? I'll throw a few out...

1) Move the Economics forum to Science category
2) Rename this something like "General Economics"; make a sub-forum called "Academic Economics" or something that's not too elitist
3) Far stricter moderation; pass all the rest of our problems onto the Politics forum
4) Make a recession sub-forum (the inverse of option 2)

Any other suggestions?

I think recession forum is a good idea.

Until recently, there have been many good discussion among 'high level' economists and 'lay economists' (for want of better terms - I don't think I fit into either category).

However, the recent deluge has been mostly recession related, so a sub forum for all of the 'random rant against the public sector and the banks' posts. I think if you make an 'Economic Theory' forum you will scare off the people who were posting here before the recent events.

I would also be for shunting the forum into Sci.

Économiste Monétaire

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

Both of those questions are serious. The second one is not phrased in economic language but the failure of banks and the banking system is an economic issue. There are serious questions to be addressed here. If you don't want to deal with them then the subforum is a good idea, imo.

Where, specifically, have you addressed these "serious questions" about monetary economics before?

nesf

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

Both of those questions are serious. The second one is not phrased in economic language but the failure of banks and the banking system is an economic issue. There are serious questions to be addressed here..

There's more to in than it's not phrased in economic language, it's the format of the question. There's no telling what the underlying assumptions of the question are or what format the answer should be with a question like how the banks ****ed it all up.

What is ****ing up here, what exact problems are we going to focus on? For example: How will liquidity shortages impact on the private sector can be asked by a lay person as "how screwed up are businesses now with banks not lending to people?". The second form is certainly not phrased in economic language but it's as good a question as the first one is and will have a similar answer because it's a good question that actually tries to pick out something of what's going on. Just saying the banks ****ed up means everything and nothing and you end up with dozens of different conflicting answers because people interpret it differently. If people want to simply rant about things or push a particular political viewpoint they should be just told to take it to Politics or After Hours and leave this forum for analysing economic problems in a constructive non-partisian way if that's even possible.

You most certainly don't need to be au fait with economic jargon to ask a good serious economic question, which is why I don't like the idea of trying to put an academic barrier between the forums. You just need to put a bit of thought into how you phrase the questions otherwise you won't be able to find good answers to them.

SkepticOne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Where, specifically, have you addressed these "serious questions" about monetary economics before?

I've certainly discussed economic issues many on boards and many relate to the issue of why the the banking system here is the way it is.

Économiste Monétaire

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

I've certainly discussed economic issues many on boards and many relate to the issue of why the the banking system here is the way it is.

Then point me to one substantive post about monetary economics.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

You most certainly don't need to be au fait with economic jargon to ask a good serious economic question, which is why I don't like the idea of trying to put an academic barrier between the forums. You just need to put a bit of thought into how you phrase the questions otherwise you won't be able to find good answers to them.

It is a fair point and I agree with you about the undesirability of splitting the forum. I thought the question was from within a thread not a thread starter. However if the forum is to be split, I think the worst way is to put the economic topic of the day into sub forum. That will look to outsiders like a refusal to deal with reality.

SkepticOne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Then point me to one substantive post about monetary economics.

I won't. I don't really care what you make of that.

nesf

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is a fair point and I agree with you about the undesirability of splitting the forum. I thought the question was from within a thread not a thread starter. However if the forum is to be split, I think the worst way is to put the economic topic of the day into sub forum. That will look to outsiders like a refusal to deal with reality.

Well part of the problem is that the study of recessions is only one part of Economics. There's a lot more to the discipline than that. The issue partly stems from the fact that people have a false perception of what economists do because of the obsession with houses and GDP levels over the past decade. The majority of Irish economists are interested in (and trying to answer) questions far away from these two constrictive topics.

It doesn't help that severe recessions are extremely rare and it's very hard to predict things that happen rarely because the data available is so scant and it's not like we can rerun events with slightly different conditions to test theories.


Getting back to the topic at hand. This forum in my elitist ivory tower arrogant bastard position (tm), is that it should be for more serious and restrained debate than that which is in Politics on these topics. It shouldn't be hostile to any lay person who comes in and tackles the questions seriously and thoughtfully. Rants should have little to no place here, we already have a bunch of places to do them.

Économiste Monétaire

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

I won't. I don't really care what you make of that.

Shock, horror... what a surprise.

K-9

There's a difficulty here though. Some posters genuinely post vague questions like "why did the banks fail" or "is the bail out a good idea" out of genuine curiosity, to get an economists opinion.

Others, just want a rant, which is probably more politics related.

From that viewpoint, tougher moderation is needed. Don't lock immediately, maybe see how the OP reacts to responses. If they are interested in responses, all good, if it's just a rant, move to politics. Though as a follower of the politics board, be selective! :rolleyes:

Generally I browse here. I'm interested in the Economists opinions even if it's a "no, but" answer. I like to get an Economists opinion.

I like the idea of a sub forum, but more moderation is needed. Just be prepared for numerous threads on feedback akin to the politics mods!

Seanies32 aka K-9

PS. Maybe mods could point out when threads are getting political and point out it isn't the relevant forum?

nesf

No

K-9 wrote: »

From that viewpoint, tougher moderation is needed. Don't lock immediately, maybe see how the OP reacts to responses. If they are interested in responses, all good, if it's just a rant, move to politics. Though as a follower of the politics board, be selective!

As a mod of Politics I'd appreciate it if threads weren't moved to Politics because we dislike possible situations where someone posted something that was ok by the rules of the original forum suddenly becoming a bannable offence when it's moved to Politics (i.e. we can't and generally won't act on it but it'll generate responses from people skimming the thread who don't realise that it was moved to Politics from a different forum). Locking the thread on here and pointing in our direction is a better idea.

K-9 wrote: »

I like the idea of a sub forum, but more moderation is needed. Just be prepared for numerous threads on feedback akin to the politics mods!

We don't get that many threads really. Most people accept the rules without complaint because they can see that they apply to everyone including the mods themselves and we are, in fairness, pretty consistent in applying them I think.

When you see threads about Politics on there it's generally either the crazies or people with an axe to grind. There are occasional exceptions where people had a genuine complaint but they are relatively rare.

K-9 wrote: »

PS. Maybe mods could point out when threads are getting political and point out it isn't the relevant forum?

Believe me, that'll just earn the mods here a lot of flak.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

As a mod of Politics I'd appreciate it if threads weren't moved to Politics because we dislike possible situations where someone posted something that was ok by the rules of the original forum suddenly becoming a bannable offence when it's moved to Politics (i.e. we can't and generally won't act on it but it'll generate responses from people skimming the thread who don't realise that it was moved to Politics from a different forum). Locking the thread on here and pointing in our direction is a better idea.

Aye, think that's a good idea. If the OP drags it off topic and isn't interested in responses, just their agenda, that's a good idea.

nesf wrote:

We don't get that many threads really. Most people accept the rules without complaint because they can see that they apply to everyone including the mods themselves and we are, in fairness, pretty consistent in applying them I think.

When you see threads about Politics on there it's generally either the crazies or people with an axe to grind. There are occasional exceptions where people had a genuine complaint but they are relatively rare.
Believe me, that'll just earn the mods here a lot of flak.

Accepted. It has calmed down. Though come October, batten down the hatches! Have to say politics is well modded, can be nearly too lax sometimes! :eek:

nesf

No

K-9 wrote: »

Accepted. It has calmed down. Though come October, batten down the hatches! Have to say politics is well modded, can be nearly too lax sometimes! :eek:

We're lax when we can be, we all enjoy political debate and want a broad range of views represented on the forum other than our own. Things might need to tighten up when the downturn gets a bit nastier and the realities of politics start to give people axes to grind but I hope it won't have to happen.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

We're lax when we can be, we all enjoy political debate and want a broad range of views represented on the forum other than our own. Things might need to tighten up when the downturn gets a bit nastier and the realities of politics start to give people axes to grind but I hope it won't have to happen.

Ach yeah. They'll be plenty of axes to grind! They tend to be well argued against though.

I think the mods here are trying to find the balance between more interest, (I could hardly find the forum previously) and genuine interesting debate!

Anyway, this is Off topic to Economics! :pac:

synd

Economic theory ?

What does a theoretical conclusion grounded in unrealistic assumptions have to do with reality ?

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Ach yeah. They'll be plenty of axes to grind! They tend to be well argued against though.

I think the mods here are trying to find the balance between more interest, (I could hardly find the forum previously) and genuine interesting debate!

Anyway, this is Off topic to Economics! :pac:

It would seem though that there are two types of faction here;

Those who are interested in economic debate and accept that they won't get simple yes/no type answers to complicated questions. These people also understand (or are willing to try and understand) the tools which economists use. As a result, you get interesting debates that don't get dragged off into 'Is economics a science' / '**** the ESRI' / 'Yeah sure, but thats not what D McW said'. Now any of those topics are fine to discuss, providing you qualify your statement within the framework of the discipline. This has not been happening for a while, but this, to me anyway, is the main reason why this forum was started.

However, it is also true the people are interested in discussing 'current affairs' economics but who don't want to take the time to seperate their rants from arguments. Which is a pity as there have been some good points raised in recent threads but they get drowned out by the noise. A subforum for 'less rigorous' type discussions would allow for this, but to be honest, AH or Politics may be a better place for it as there has been very little economics discussed in the threads of late.

K-9

Yep, the same threads seem to be appearing on Economics and Politics. Even seen the exact same post on 2 threads, one here, one on Politics.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

Well part of the problem is that the study of recessions is only one part of Economics. There's a lot more to the discipline than that. The issue partly stems from the fact that people have a false perception of what economists do because of the obsession with houses and GDP levels over the past decade. The majority of Irish economists are interested in (and trying to answer) questions far away from these two constrictive topics.

The problem I have with this is that you can't discuss the Irish economy without mentioning house prices, construction and so fourth. The inevitable collapse of these is a large part of what we're dealing with today. If you are going to have a public forum called 'Economics' then 'the Economy' and what is happening to it is going to be discussed. As you have pointed out, a lot of this discussion is going to fall outside current orthodox economic thinking but even if it falls within it, it is still possible to choose the wrong model or under-emphasise the importance of some factor in the model.

It doesn't help that severe recessions are extremely rare and it's very hard to predict things that happen rarely because the data available is so scant and it's not like we can rerun events with slightly different conditions to test
theories.

No one is expecting perfection. Better to have an imperfect model describing the world than a perfect one describing nothing. The current economic situation should be seen as a challenge for economics rather than an incovenience.

Getting back to the topic at hand. This forum in my elitist ivory tower arrogant bastard position (tm), is that it should be for more serious and restrained debate than that which is in Politics on these topics. It shouldn't be hostile to any lay person who comes in and tackles the questions seriously and thoughtfully. Rants should have little to no place here, we already have a bunch of places to do them.

I would tend to agree with this but this works both ways. I pointed out a thread from several months ago which I will not link to again. To my mind there was a failure to engage on both sides. Blanket dismissals and misrepresentations were used to dismiss points which we now see as highly relevant. The problem here is not that people were offended, but that the points were lost.

nesf

No

SkepticOne wrote: »

The problem I have with this is that you can't discuss the Irish economy without mentioning house prices, construction and so fourth. The inevitable collapse of these is a large part of what we're dealing with today. If you are going to have a public forum called 'Economics' then 'the Economy' and what is happening to it is going to be discussed.

My point was that Economics isn't only concerned with the present macroeconomic situation, because there are many different areas of economics. No Irish Economist focussed on the Irish economy ignores house prices, construction etc but not all Irish economists are focussed on this area of economics.

SkepticOne wrote: »

As you have pointed out, a lot of this discussion is going to fall outside current orthodox economic thinking but even if it falls within it, it is still possible to choose the wrong model or under-emphasise the importance of some factor in the model.

What is current orthodox economic thinking? And you do realise that model specification and the possibility of error in doing so is a central tenet in Economics and something that drives a lot of academic debate over how to model reality and that economists generally take a very critical approach to modelling which includes (in the many, many hetrodox branches of the discipline rejecting one or more of the neoclassical tenets)?

SkepticOne wrote: »

No one is expecting perfection. Better to have an imperfect model describing the world than a perfect one describing nothing. The current economic situation should be seen as a challenge for economics rather than an incovenience.

It is seen as a challenge. Believe it or not, Economists almost like it when their models stop working because it gives them a greater insight into how the world works and leads to very interesting debate on what concepts need to overhauled/gotten rid of/introduced. Again, this kind of thing drives much of the hetrodoxy in Economics and what's hetrodox today might become commonly accepted in five to ten years etc.

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would tend to agree with this but this works both ways. I pointed out a thread from several months ago which I will not link to again. To my mind there was a failure to engage on both sides. Blanket dismissals and misrepresentations were used to dismiss points which we now see as highly relevant. The problem here is not that people were offended, but that the points were lost.

The problems were that people came in saying that there "will" be a recession and that the ESRI talk ****. That kind of attitude will just get people's backs up which is where most of the worst of that thread comes from.

Time Magazine

No

Can we get back on-topic please?

Time Magazine

No

I guess not then

Flamed Diving

No

An Economic Theory 'sub-forum' would be perfect.

I would argue the otherway, a relaxed 'current affairs' sub forum would be better, as then the people who coming here with economics related questions will get to the forum and not be bombarded with threads about lazy banksters and how the ESRI screwed us.

There is a lot more to economics then just house prices so I don't think that all of that should be shunted off as a subforum to talks about recescession.

Flamed Diving

No

Either way is fine.

Time Magazine

No

Right gents, let's try get this sorted. I think there are two options left, and I'd appreciate if people expressed their views/voted.

1. Tougher moderation: lock threads that are stupid (but be welcoming to people who have genuine questions) and ban people who repeatedly post crap;

or...

2. Permit almost anything in this forum and make a sub-forum (called something like "Economic Theory") that's for nerds.

Flamed Diving

No

Nerd Forum.

I'd go with 1 (assuming you and the other mod have the time for it, I know you are busy!)

It would seem to be more inclusive and more inline in what this forum is set up for.

gurramok

Nerd forum.

Todays economic crisis makes people interested in the topic, thats why alot of posters have come here.

Define crap?

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

Define crap?

That's the problem.

Still, I trust the mods to decide that.

Option 1.

nesf

No

Option 1, there are plenty of places for non-economic recession discussion. Keep it serious and force people to back up their statements.

That said, Option 1 is going to get you a whole load of grief.

P. Breathnach

The Economist wrote: »

1. Tougher moderation: lock threads that are stupid (but be welcoming to people who have genuine questions) and ban people who repeatedly post crap;

or...

2. Permit almost anything in this forum and make a sub-forum (called something like "Economic Theory") that's for nerds.

How about both? I mean that even if a specialist forum is created, the moderation in the general forum be a bit tougher -- that any thread that does not have some reasonable economic content be locked.

I don't want to be an economics nerd, but I am interested in the economics of public issues.

nesf

No

gurramok wrote: »

Define crap?

Well, we can remove all the emotive rants that aren't based on any form of economic analysis for a start.

nesf

No

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How about both? I mean that even if a specialist forum is created, the moderation in the general forum be a bit tougher -- that any thread that does not have some reasonable economic content be locked.

I don't think we need a separate nerd forum to be honest. Harsher moderation would remove the worst of the stuff from this forum.

Also moving it out of Soc might help some bit.

gurramok

nesf wrote:

Well, we can remove all the emotive rants that aren't based on any form of economic analysis for a start.

Would the following be desired not to be in the Economics forum? (current economic issues, yeh lets include taxi prices )

Property Tax - suggestions
Taxi Prices
Are we in a Depression?
Live Register figure hits record high.
credit ratings downgraded soon
The Deficit and public-sector pay


And the following which are really Economic theory stay?

Robert Engle on financial risk and the world economy
Graph showing size of banks 2007 v 2009 in market capital
is there any measurement of the economy that can be trusted?
Energy Modelling Software