Peer review only helps when the peers have a clue. By the articles own admissions, no one has any real idea of how to do macroeconomics that predicts the real

Peer review only helps when the peers have a clue. By the articles own admissions, no one has any real idea of how to do macroeconomics that predicts the real world. Without the discipline of reality, peer review becomes group-think. In macro they develop all sorts of claims and mathematics that have no connection to what actually happens. But with so many different approaches and claims some actually seem to predict what happens, just as some stock pickers seem to predict stock prices, though it is mostly random.