Erik BrittonGuest
Jeff PedowitzHost
I know with a lot of people that don't always necessarily understand economics, it could unfairly get lumped in with weather, right? Because economists are always speculating about what could happen, what should happen if this happens.

And then if it doesn't happen, people are always quick to say, oh, see, you're wrong again.

You have a forecast when you step out of the door in the morning that the sky isn't going to fall on your head.

Generally, that's a pretty good forecast, but it's a forecast nonetheless based on the model.

And you're generating forecasts based on that for absolutely everything that you do.

The question is, how good is it? How disciplined is it? Is it based on something rigorous or is it just finger in the air judgment? And actually, both of those are involved in any model.

where you've done some careful statistical work and there's an element of judgment that's inevitably brought into play in both of those furnishes.

But the idea that because somebody's forecast was wrong, therefore you can stop using forecasts is fantasy.

It's just a question of how good they are, how rigorously you've generated them.

And I would say the fundamental thing about econ is not I have generated a forecast for such and such an outcome.

The fundamental thing is I've got a way, a structure, a way of thinking about trade-offs.

I know with a lot of people that don't always necessarily understand economics, it could unfairly get lumped in with weather, right? Because economists are always speculating about what could happen, what should happen if this happens.

And then if it doesn't happen, people are always quick to say, oh, see, you're wrong again.

You have a forecast when you step out of the door in the morning that the sky isn't going to fall on your head.

Generally, that's a pretty good forecast, but it's a forecast nonetheless based on the model.

And you're generating forecasts based on that for absolutely everything that you do.

The question is, how good is it? How disciplined is it? Is it based on something rigorous or is it just finger in the air judgment? And actually, both of those are involved in any model.

where you've done some careful statistical work and there's an element of judgment that's inevitably brought into play in both of those furnishes.

But the idea that because somebody's forecast was wrong, therefore you can stop using forecasts is fantasy.

It's just a question of how good they are, how rigorously you've generated them.

And I would say the fundamental thing about econ is not I have generated a forecast for such and such an outcome.

The fundamental thing is I've got a way, a structure, a way of thinking about trade-offs.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.