I'm looking for predictive economic models out in the open. I want to see the underlying assumptions and experiment. I'm not even picky about the kind of model: it could be a relatively simple linear regression model, a systems dynamics model, a complex simulation, or anything in-between. I just want models to a focal point of discussion rather than some poorly-explained textual interpretation.

I know... I'm asking for too much... this is usually proprietary stuff, so people are reluctant to share. But I want to live in a world where sensible people can compare models of what might happen. We don't have to necessarily agree on the assumptions or results. But we could at least be open about why we predict various outcomes. That would be better foundation that how we do things now, which is really embarrassing for a world with our capabilities.

Eventually, I want to live in a world where we have sensible discussions about our predictions and about which outcomes are more and less favorable.

P.S. If you are building a product or startup doing this, let me know. Or let everyone know. I built a product in this general area many years ago, but I didn't find product-market fit. Anyhow, I just want modeling tools like this to exist; I don't care who makes them.

P.P.S. I'm very intentionally not bringing in my political philosophy nor level of personal concern here. To be open, I am personally affected, as are many of my friends, but I want to find some kind of common ground that doesn't make this about my particular take on the overall situation.

I think my concern here would be people weighting their ideas/opinions far too much on mathematical models that may, or may not represent the complex economic reality.

We already see this with people arguing with near 100% confidence of X happening because of Y and Z…in a vacuum.

I want to see something similar to what you’re asking, don’t get me wrong. But the underbelly of that is a broken clock being right twice a day and far too much weight and decision making being put into some model that doesn’t actually reflect reality

The solution to a bad model is more models :). I'm joking but serious. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

Although also responsive, the solution to incorrectly applying models _isn't_ to get more models, it's to understand the mistakes being made in applying them.

I don't have any insights on specific models that are "out there", but I'll share one tidbit you might find of interest if you're not already familiar with it. Douglas Hubbard's "Applied Information Economics"[1] is a methodology that could probably be applied to doing what you're asking for. Is it the only such methodology? Almost certainly not. Is it the best? I really don't know, as I think the scope of what you're looking at goes a little beyond what Doug originally intended for AIE. But it could potentially still be applied there, I think.

[1]: https://hubbardresearch.com/about/applied-information-econom...

> I just want models to a focal point of discussion rather than some poorly-explained textual interpretation.

Do we have any economic models which managed to predict any non-obvious, relevant things?

I mean there’s some fed ones. Two are

- GDPNow if you want shorter term: https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

- DSGE if you want longer term: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/dsge#/overview

Eia also publishes their models.

GDP is such a deeply flawed metric of measuring human welfare.

It’s an aggregate measure and doesn’t tell the distribution of wealth amongst nation.

Also, it’s a metric that was sort of useful in the 1950s and during wartime when this country manufactured goods. Now it’s all unclear in this modern economy. It doesn’t take into proper account of services, quality of care, quality of life.

It doesn’t even take into account _losses_ that may occur. Such as a natural disaster. Sure, in a post disaster GDP goes up because region is rebuilding. But the losses due to disaster are not figured into GDP.

It’s a broken metric. Stop using this as an indicator of economic health and human welfare.

edit; never heard of DSGE but yet again looks like yet another flawed “model” that assumes a level of “equilibrium” and seems to have been birthed out of the pseudoscience known as neoclassical (and orthodox) economics.

I get your point of view. But I'm intentionally trying to focus on prediction.

There are ways to track ownership of entities and relationships. There are ways to quantify how contracts are awarded, the results, and the impacts. These are complex models, but they can give insight into the dynamics.

I thought the old teaching said that during a recession when governments want to save money, the best strategy is to increase spending in order to increase the circulation of money and stimulate the economy, and when there is a economic boom and governments can afford to increase spending, they should do the opposite in order to save money for when a recession occur. This was the somewhat paradoxical strategy that I got taught in school during my teenage years.

I don't know how true this actually is.

This is Keybesian counter-cyclic policy. It makes sense but is hard to do in practical politics.

Which is why the federal reserve was ostensibly decoupled from politics and democratic election, and designed in secret on Jackyll island so the public would not poison it.

Unfortunately as you say if you try to time the market, or centrally plan interest, you generally get it wrong and end up even worse than a floating market.

It didn't take long before we saw the effects of the great depression.

Crash the economy on the backs of a majority of workers (federal workers are large portion democrats) who didn't vote for you so interests rates / inflation goes down.

I’d be curious to see a breakdown, aren’t a lot of federal jobs in red states? Besides I’m more interested in the second order impacts, what happens when those people stop spending in their communities?

Government employees draw their money from taxes, inflation, or debt that's paid by one of the two. Stop spending is a bit of a myth, it reverts the spending to whatever productive entity in the economy it was taken from.

Huh? If you or anyone loses a job and can not find another for a few months to many there's no doubt they won't be contributing to the economy.

Government employees are funded by taxing or inflating away wealth from the productive economy. That wealth doesn't evaporate when the government employee is fired, it is instead reverts back for spending to the entities from which it came. It's in another person's pocket who themselves can fuel the local economy, not gone.

> At a Morgan Stanley conference this month, Brian Robins, finance chief for San Francisco-based software maker GitLab, said GitLab is aligned with the goals of DOGE, because the company’s software tools aim to help people do more with less.

> “What the Department of Government Efficiency is trying to do is what GitLab does,” Robins said.

...well, fuck

Nothing they are doing is good for business. All will suffer. Think the Military Industrial Complex can't run when agencies, the military and our allies won't be able to buy our munitions/platforms? Nope, and private business won't need it unless they can offload on to local governments at less than cost, and cities will be broke without federal funds backing them up.

It's pretty clear the obvious objective is to cripple the economy and buy up the losers for pennies on the dollar then also use government money as the carrot to compel surviving companies and local governments to adopt policies that are favorable to administration insiders.

The new game is how much dick can you suck so someone in power smiles upon you.

This is my assessment as well. Yes, all companies feel pain, but some can survivor years of pain compared to competitors, and couple that with price increases due to tariffs.

Then in 18-24 months when everyone has resigned themselves to the price increases and the politically connected buy up struggling businesses the tariffs come off.

At which point, the cost to the business is lowered but the price increases will more or less stay, and those that have consolidated power will be in prime position to remain dominate for some time, likely decades.

It’s a giant market manipulation experiment disguised as many other actions but will ultimately culminate in consolidations of power

Step II is going to be regulatory capture. I expect to start seeing this by summer or fall

It depends on "good for who" and over what time scale.

My dominant model is this: the core of the Trump administration is most interested in remaining in power and building connections. So they do whatever works to garner favor. They are relatively unaware or unafraid of the gathering storm of legal pushback. I think they figure they can get away with a lot before it catches up to them, politically or legally. This includes taking actions that they know are illegal.

Bluntly, with their own admission, they are bringing a chainsaw to the status quo. Why? Probably because this builds power: others are beholden to them to build it back. I don't think there is much of a shared sense of "doing what is best" for the country. I view them as opportunists, hoping to ride Trump's popularity.

Around them is a coalition with a range of interests. Some are genuine believers that DOGE will bring greater long-term economic growth (i.e. GDP). Some are so ideological that no real-world scenario would prompt them to change their policy prescriptions. Some of the coalition actively wants to reduce separation of church and state. Some are willing to curtail freedom of the press.

It is a dangerous coalition because each part seems willing to let the other parts get what they want. They seem to fail to understand the importance of the rule of law and economic stability.

I wonder how many know that Silicon Valley wouldn't exist without government research. Have they studied history? I can't claim to peer into their brains. I am curious as to what various people on the inside think they are accomplishing.

It sure seems like a risky bet to ally with Trump; any allies better be ready to contort themselves to his various mercurial whims. Which parts of the coalition can get what they want and come out the other side in good shape? It seems to me they are burning the candle at both ends.

Up until now, I've been reluctantly tolerant (far from happy) with a manageable level of government inefficiency, military-industrial backscratching, political pork sharing, and insufferably inane politics -- because, put together, this seems to a relatively stable way of maintaining some semblance of a representative democracy, healthy economy, a strong entrepreneurial sector, strong national defense, and math/science research. But the current direction is far worse. I don't think economic chaos, massive privatization, blatant corruption, likely Constitutional crises, meddling with the free press, using government for political retribution of (institutions, universities, individuals), loss of confidence in SCOTUS, etc... is doing to lead the US in promising directions. A significant number of people and business are going to leave. We're losing national prestige. It is a net loss to America and the world. But a net gain to Trump and his circle, at least in the short-run.

Most of the bombs/munitions the US drops is from the perspective of the American worker the equivalent of digging holes in the desert.

The way to have more goods and services is to make more goods and services. Releasing people from digging holes allows us to create more wealth.

so space x and Tesla are going to part with enough shares to pay back all the money they got from the public (and the growth that said money funded)?

For SpaceX, we can deduct the amount they saved which would have gone to NASA. For Tesla, we can look at foreign gov subsidies which went to foreign car companies like BYD, Toyota, etc... because it wouldn't make sense to target just Tesla... Given that governments of all nations play a key role in propping up their national auto companies.

I think what they're doing is long overdue. The abuse and corruption already exposed proves it. The net savings to taxpayers far outweighs any business losses from what I've gathered.