As the GP states, the article accepts the claim: "Economists don’t understand much about the macroeconomy" But then says that in fact economists have e.g. con

As the GP states, the article accepts the claim: "Economists don’t understand much about the macroeconomy" But then says that in fact economists have e.g. contributed to fewer people living in poverty. I'm simply saying I don't accept that the research of economists has improved e.g the poverty situation without some evidence of that fact. Before the discipline of 'economist' existed human societies experienced rises and falls of poverty, inflation etc. Is that sufficient evidence for you that 'completely unmanaged' (your words, which I don't even really understand your point here -- are you claiming economists 'manage' the economy?) economies have in the past had periods of ups like ours today? The article is bordering on claiming that economists have nfi what they are doing, but the effects of their efforts have been amazing.