Chess metaphor for macroeconomics

Photo source: Wikimedia Commons, MichaelMaggs

Photo license: CC BY-SA 3.0

I think of macroeconomics as being like a chess game. Similar to chess, the world economy is made of many different economic actors with different abilities and placements. The world economy has a structure that is continually evolving. Instead of relying on a particular macroeconomic theory, I think it's more effective to pragmatically analyze the structure of economic actors in an economy to determine the best course of action. In chess, players must also pragmatically analyze the structure of the pieces to make decisions.

Here is what each chess piece represents in the economy:

• Pawns: non-wealthy individuals
• Queen: billionaires
• Rooks, bishops and knights: companies
• King: planet earth
• Opponent's pieces: goods and services

Pawns represents non-wealthy individuals because pawns have the least mobility and are the weakest pieces on the board. If a pawn is able to reach the other side of the board, they acquire the abilities of a queen. This represents when a non-wealthy individual through hard work and luck is able to become a billionaire.

The queen represents billionaires because the queen has the greatest mobility and power in the game. Billionaires are the most powerful actors in the economy.

Rooks, bishops and knights represent companies because they have a lot of power but not as much as the queen. Companies are extremely diverse, therefore it's fitting that they can be either a rook, bishop or knight.

The king represents planet earth because if the king dies, the game is over. If planet earth becomes so polluted that it's uninhabitable, it's game over for society. A defensive strategy to protect the king is symbolic of regulations to protect the environment.

The opponent's pieces represent goods and services because the goal of economics is to produce goods and services. The goal of chess is to conquer the opponent's pieces.

When playing chess, it's important that all of your pieces work together. It's important that your pieces back each other up. Unsupported pawns stand no chance of surviving. Pawns need the help of more powerful pieces to make a greater contribution. Bottom line, your pieces must act like a team. Imagine playing a game of chess without moving your queen; you will lose. This is the similar to not taxing billionaires to pay for things that will improve society.

Here's a quote from Adam Smith referring to chess,

...in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759)

I have one last thing I want to say about metaphors. Metaphors are not supposed to be perfect equivalencies. I'm aware this metaphor has flaws if you expect chess to be a perfect representation of an economy. All metaphors break down at a certain point with enough scrutiny. This post is merely a list of connections that I think make sense.

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

What is economics?

Photo source: Wikimedia Commons, AndrewHorne

What is economics? Here is my definition:

Economics is the study of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

In other words, economics is the study of the economy.

This post is a collection definitions for 'economics' from famous economists. I have divided the definitions into four categories: scarcity, wealth, decision-making and open-ended. This post was inspired by Roger Backhouse and Steven Medema's paper 'On the Definition of Economics'.

For each definition, I have provided a short analysis. There are 17 definitions below.

Wealth based definitions

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

"[Economics is] the nature and causes of the wealth of nations." (The Wealth of Nations, 1776)

• I think Smith's definition in agreement with the definition I stated above. 'Wealth' is a good substitute word for 'goods and services'. 'Nature and causes' is a good substitute for the word 'study'.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832)

"[Political economy is] the science of production, distribution and consumption of wealth." (A Treatise on Political Economy, 1803)

• This definition is basically the same as the one I provided above. 'Wealth' isn't as descriptive as 'goods and services' but means the same thing. My only problem with this definition is that the word 'wealth' could be misinterpreted for 'abundance', therefore I prefer the phrase 'goods and services'.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

"[Political economy] is the science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object." (On the definition of Political Economy, 1867)

• Although this definition is confusing, I agree that economics revolves around the 'wealth'. That's really all this definition is saying.

Thomas Adams (1873-1933), Richard Ely (1854-1943), Max Lorenz (1876-1959) and Allyn Young (1876-1929)

"[Economics is] the wealth-getting and wealth-using activities of man." (Outlines of Economics 4th edition, 1926)

• I agree that economics has to do with  'wealth-getting' (production) and 'wealth-using' (consumption) but I think this definition would be better if it mentioned 'wealth-distribution'.

Scarcity based definitions

Lionel Robbins (1898-1984)

"[Economics is] the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." (Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 1932)

• This is currently the most influential and popular definition of economics. I'm generally against 'scarce' definitions of economics because I don't think 'scarce' is an accurate mindset for a world with unlimited opportunity.

George Stigler (1911-1991)

"[Economics is] the study of the principles governing the allocation of scarce resources among competing ends when the objective of the allocation is to maximize the attainment of the ends." (The Theory of Competitive Price, 1942)

• Once again, I don't think economics should be about 'scarce resources'.

Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

"[Economics is] the science of how a particular society solves its economic problems... an economic problem exists whenever scarce means are used to satisfy alternative ends." (Price Theory: A Provisional Text, 1962)

• I don't think economics should revolve around 'problems'.

Paul Samuelson (1915-2009)

"Economics is the study of how people and society end up choosing with or without the use of money to employ scarce productive resources that could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities and distribute them for consumption, now or in the future, among various persons and groups in society. It analyzes the costs and benefits of improving patterns of resource allocation." (Economics 10th edition, 1976)

• I agree with this definition except that I would replace the word 'scarce' for 'limited'. But even the word 'limited' is kinda wrong. There are some economic resources I would describe as 'abundant'. Maybe it would be best to just remove the word 'scarce'.

Gary Becker (1930-2014)

"[Economics is] the study of allocation of scarce means to satisfy competing ends." (Economic Theory, 1971)

• I think this definition is too focused on the 'distribution' and 'consumption' part of economics with not enough emphasis of 'production'.

Robin Bade and Michael Parkin

"[Economics is the] social science that studies the choices that individual, business, government and entire societies make as they cope with scarcity." (Foundations of Microeconomics, 2002)

• This definition revolves around scarcity. It's as if society is given a pie that must be divided up with no potential to create more pie. This definition doesn't talk about the 'production' part of economics.

Decision-making based definitions

Carl Menger (1840-1921)

"[Economics] is related to the practical activities of economizing men." (Principles of Economics, 1871)

• What does it mean to economize? According to Google, "to spend less; to reduce one's expenses". Although this definition kinda works, I think its too broad and doesn't properly define the boundaries of what economics is.

Alfred Marshall (1842-1924)

"Political economy or economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life. It examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing... thus it is on the one side a study of wealth and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man." (Principles of Political Economy, 1890)

• For the most part I agree with this definition. I agree that 'ordinary business of life' revolves around economics. I like how this definition focuses on what is 'most closely connected with the attainment and use of the material requisites of wellbeing'.

Summer Slichter (1892-1959)

"The subject matter of economics is industry; the process by which men get a living... economics studies industry, not as a technological process, but as a complex of human practices and relationships." (Modern Economic Society, 1931)

• This definition is very similar to Marshall's definition. I agree that economics is all about 'industry' (goods and services) and the 'process by which men get a living' (production, consumption).

James M. Buchanan (1919-2013)

"[Economics is] the study of the whole system of exchange relationships."

• This definition has too much emphasis on the 'distribution' part of economics while ignoring 'production' and 'consumption'.

David Colander (1947-now)

"Economics is the study of how human beings coordinate their wants and desires, given the decision-making mechanisms, social customs and political realities of the society." (Microeconomics 6th edition, 2006)

• Although I think this definition is valid for economics, I think its better suited for sociology.

Greg Mankiw (1958-now)

"Economics is the study of how society manages its resources." (Principles of Economics 2nd edition, 2001)

• This is a broad definition but I think it works. Ultimately, this definition has to do with the production, distribution and consumption of 'resources'.

James Gwartney, David MacPherson, Russell Sobel and Richard Stroup

"Economics is the study of human behavior with a particular focus on human decision-making." (Microeconomics: Private and Public Choice 11th edtion, 2006)

• This definition seems better suited for psychology.

Open-ended

Jacob Viner (1892-1970)

"Economics is what economists do." (Quoted by Kenneth Boulding in Economic Analysis, 1941)

• This definition is completely inadequate. What's the point of definitions and words in the first place? Without words and concepts we are lost children in the woods.

EconTalk: six part series on econometrics

Photo source: Wikimedia Commons, Meaghan O'Malley

Photo license: CC BY 2.0

In March 2016, Noah Smith had a blog post titled, Russ Roberts and the new empirical world. In the post, Smith mentions six episodes from Russ Roberts' podcast EconTalk about econometrics. I enjoyed listening to this series because it's informative to hear verbal explanations about econometric concepts.

This post is a collection of quotes from the six episodes.

Ed Leamer on the State of Econometrics (May 10, 2010)

"Economists don't observe feathers in a vacuum. They observe feathers when the wind is blowing, when humidity varies, eagle feathers, duck feathers. Tons of things that will affect the result."

"All we have, especially in macro is opinions and their either persuasive and well thought out or not."

Joshua Angrist on Econometrics and Causation (December 22, 2014)

"Regression is just a way to control for things, to try and hold characteristics of groups that you're trying to compare fixed."

"Each of these is an attempt to generate some kind of apples to apples comparison out of observational data."

Noah Smith on Whether Economics is a Science (December 28, 2015)

"The most important difference with natural experiments is you can't replicate them or repeat because each natural experiment happens only once."

"If you're going to believe the results of an experiment you always have to make a leap of faith that all the reasonable stuff has been controlled for, right? That the experimenter has good controls and that's an assumption and a leap of faith you have to make in every science experiment."

Adam Ozimek on the Power of Econometrics and Data (February 8, 2016)

"I think the research comes out and looks at slightly different angles and adjusts for slightly different mechanisms and we know so much more about the minimum wage than we did 10 years ago... If you look at the literature closely it doesn't look like a draw where two sides just lob evidence back and forth. It looks like progress to me."

"The stimulus act isn't something like the minimum wage. It's not a discrete policy where you turn the fiscal level up and it goes from 0 to a 1 to a 2 to a 3. The stimulus act was like a dozen different things and so to say that research hasn't told us whether the stimulus act was good or not or increased jobs, well I mean you could write a 100 page paper on just what was in it... but I do think that within the stimulus package there are things we can learn and have learned."

James Heckman on Facts, Evidence and the State of Econometrics (January 25, 2016)

"I think there's been a huge shift away from understanding behavior and moving towards statistical artifacts that are hard to interpret as responses to economic questions. So I think the credibility revolution has been somewhat overstated and not properly appreciated as having really turned focus away from serious economic analysis towards something I think is purely statistical."

"Calibrated models are models looking at some stylized facts that are putting together different pieces of data that are not mutually consistent. I mean literally you take estimates of this area, and estimates from that area and you assemble something that's like a Frankenstein..."

David Autor on Trade, China and U.S. Labor Markets (March 14, 2016)

"It's not that I think our estimates are cooked or even that sensitive. It's that they might miss other important margins. And I'm happy to concede that point. I mean, we've tried. It's not that we've sort of agreed to just sort of punt on that question. There's probably a lot of ways to look for those missing margins. We really haven't found them."