And by voodoo, I mean, of course, a discipline like psychology, in which one can identify particular features...and in which one can get useful information, but under which there is no coherent theoretical picture. Micro, on the other hand, with a praxeological foundation, is beautiful, elegant, all sorts of good math/physics-y prettiness.
However, I now have to move Cowen and Tabarrok (warning: sound + flash) up my reading list, because I've made a statement that I am not yet an expert on. Fortunately, I do have some evidence.
Paul Krugman starts here: , by taking a particular, pro-Keynsian, anti-Monetarist position
Greg Mankiw largely agreees (but he's saltwater, anyhow).
Arnold Kling, though, provides thoughtful disagreement.
Scott Sumner disagrees also, but differently.
Krugman clarifies.
Arnold Kling clarifies as well.
It's hard to call it a science, when you have at least 3 real serious macro-economists disagreeing on what the fundamentals of the problem are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I wonder of if Macro is a bit like fluid dynamics in the case where turbulence dominates.
Post a Comment