> we have been happy to rely on economic models that work with comfortingly quantitative facts on GDP, income per capita [...] If we go beyond averages and GDP

> we have been happy to rely on economic models that work with comfortingly quantitative facts on GDP, income per capita [...] If we go beyond averages and GDP per capita and look at the distributional impact of our economic decisions for instance, the picture is devastating. Up to 40 percent of people [...] have not seen their situation improve in the last decades [...] lower income groups accumulate disadvantages > The NAEC agenda is ambitious, calling for a new growth narrative that recognises the complexity of human behaviour and institutions, and calls on sociology, psychology, biology, history, and other disciplines to [...] build better models to inform economic decisions So the issue is growing inequality, and the solution is to muddy the waters with unproven models (potentially mixing dozens of disciplines)? The OECD collected data on growing inequality all along [1], but apparently they chose to recommend policies based on GDP averages instead. There's nothing "post-truth" and "emotional, not rational" about people who "have not seen their situation improve in the last decades" and "accumulate disadvantages". What's disconcerting is throwing out the whole concept of rationality instead of admitting they should have recommended policies based on different data (which they had). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coefficients_of_income_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Gini_coeffici...