> "Paul Romer says he really hadn’t planned to trash macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience." If I understand his critique correctly, it's that macroe

> "Paul Romer says he really hadn’t planned to trash macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience." If I understand his critique correctly, it's that macroeconomics has used mathematical rigor and internal consistency to mask the common-sense observation that the models' actual connections to the real world phenomena they seek to simulate have almost completely eroded away. I, for one, can think of a couple of reasons that vein of criticism might not be the sort of argument HN is primed to embrace.