Ben Mitra-Khan writes:

"The harsh truth [in my opinion] is that since the early 18th century, or
even mid 17th century, people in positions of power have wanted precise
numerical solutions to vastly complicated problems, to which they can (at
the very least) 'anchor' their policies.

The fact that history, sociology and common sense (surprisingly uncommon in
fact) generally takes up the vast majority of any policy recommendation (or
economic problem) is well known to anyone in policy making, and even to
those in economics, it's just that we have all been convinced that the only
thing that matters is the numerical solution (or statistical 'significance')
at the end of the day."



A big problem with quants is their carelessness with, and often supreme
indifference to, definitions. In their compulsion to get numerical results,
many of them will input garbage. It's not that no one has ever pointed this
out, GIGO is well known: it just doesn't seem to faze the juggernaut.
Redefining Progress has been publishing for years, environmentalists have
been howling, tax reformers have been nipping, but quants massage away as
though their numbers meant something.

What are income, GNP, unemployment, depreciation, depletion, appreciation,
capital, capital gains, national defense, rent, consumption, inflation ...
grab data from some governmental agency and start massaging, there's the
rub.

Conspiracy? There are always some, but mostly this caters to the human
weakness to play with toy models without getting one's hands dirty, or
offending anyone in power. If they can't understand what you're saying,
they're unlikely to harass you.

Mason Gaffney