> If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatolog

> If a climatologist proposes a model, good or bad, we can still use that model to make predictions and then wait for them to come true (or not). The climatologist is in no position to coerce the weather to adhere to what his models says will happen. > And economists as a group are in a position to steer the economy in the direction of whatever their model predicts. > Any predictions they make are less predictions and much closer to being promises. Economists are in a position to coerce the economy in a direction, but I don't think that economists are in a position to coerce the economy to fit a model unless they have an accurate model (which may or may not be the same model as the first model) of the economy already. For example, I might predict that putting a 100% tax on oil will cause the stock market to rise. But that model is just wrong. I might be able to put a 100% tax on oil and then coerce the stock market to rise despite doing that, but to do that I would have to have an accurate model of the economy. An accurate model allows you to coerce the economy intentionally--without an accurate model you can take actions that will affect the economy, but you can't predict what effects your actions will have. You can't steer the economy if you don't have an accurate model of it. EDIT: There is significant incentive for economists to lie; that is, economists might publicly espouse a model they don't believe in order to steer the economy based on a model they do believe. There is also some evidence that some economists do this. However, this should not be mistaken for a proof that non-economists are better qualified to talk about the economy than economists. Ignorance is no more truthful than dishonesty.