4 ms·
I don't think it's possible to learn macroeconomics "properly", in the sense that one can learn e.g. quantum physics "properly". I pick quantum physics because
by amalcon 4y ago
I don't think it's possible to learn macroeconomics "properly", in the sense that one can learn e.g. quantum physics "properly". I pick quantum physics because not every expert agrees on some of the tail end of theoretical things, but there's broad agreement on the main parts of it. Those main parts are more than the average person will ever need to use.
This is not remotely true with respect to macroeconomics. It's absolutely routine that you can find even two orthodox economists (or hedge fund managers, or other practical folks if you prefer) who look at the same situation and predict incompatible outcomes. You don't even need to go down the various heterodox rabbit holes; people ostensibly operating from the same theory routinely make opposed predictions.
It's still worth learning some of the vocabulary, because it is useful for understanding what people are talking about. Of course learning is also gratifying for its own sake, and don't let anyone dissuade you if that's what you're up to. Still, I don't think it makes sense to learn macroeconomics on an expert level for a practical purpose. I don't think it's possible to define what an "expert level" even is.
- hotpotamus 4y agoThe saying goes, "if you want three opinions, ask two economists looking at one set of data".
- arethuza 4y ago"Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say ‘on the one hand… [and then] on the other.'" President Truman
- onionisafruit 4y agoYou can still learn the theories. Even though they disagree most economists can look at some data and agree what Hayek, Keynes or Friedman would say about it.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago>there's broad agreement on the main parts of it >This is not remotely true with respect to macroeconomics. Macroeconomists agree largely on most econ topics. Probably anything you'll find in undergrad (and most grad) macro textbooks the majority will agree on. As evidence, here's [1] a useful site with polls dating back a decade of ~100 of the world's leading economists. Even on these hard questions you'll find they tend to agree quite well. They agree even more on topics not as near the fringe as these questions. [1] https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/ https://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/
- danielmarkbruce 4y agoThe agreement v disagreement thing is a symptom of: Macroeconomic models can't predict the future. The agreed upon physics models can predict the future to a crazy high level of precision. Even the ones we know are not 100% accurate. So, it's basically a waste of time to spend too much time learning macro. It's largely useless.