3 ms·
These two things * Easy to grasp (the basic principles, anyway) * Experiments are pretty much impossible (making being disproven relatively rare) make me thi
by jfoutz 18y ago
These two things
* Easy to grasp (the basic principles, anyway)
* Experiments are pretty much impossible (making being disproven relatively rare)
make me think that it is not possible to be an expert on macroeconomics. Or, since nothing is falsifiable my opinion about how these random rules fit together is just as good as anyone else's. My entire career is based on how random rules fit together. I'm good at it. That's why I'm an expert on macroeconomics.
- cglee 18y agoExperiments are at the core of modern social science. In general, econ, poli sci, etc have been moving towards a more rigorous statistics and experiments-based approach. Now whether or not you think social science experiments are valid is another question, but they do perform.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoI don't get what prompted the basic complaint of the article. The quality of discussion I see online about economics is usually pretty decent. Much better than some CNN circle-jerk of pundits, anyway.
- zacharypinter 18y agoI think the catch with macroeconomics is that anybody can come by after the fact and provide an explanation for why things happened the way they did. Many of the explanations are not falsifiable, and two competing explanations might both sound reasonable. So, a person chooses the explanation they prefer for some reason other than economics. If they distrust government, they prefer the explanation that says it was government's fault. If they hold contempt for the rich, they prefer the explanation of corporate greed. And so on... One of the key tenants of science is that a hypothesis makes testable predictions. If we can't falsify economic explanations, then perhaps we should take this approach and focus on the theories that make the best predictions.