Economists are sometimes chided for disagreeing about the importance of such basic questions as the relative role of aggregate demand and aggregate supply but physicists can’t even find most of the universe and microbiologists don’t agree on whether the human genome is 80% functional or 80% junk. Is disagreement a result of knaves and fools? Sometimes, but more often disagreement is just the way the invisible hand of science works.
Those we should no trust are the journalists playing the economists.
Physics, biology, and economics all framed certain problems centuries ago. Physics and biology have answered the questions as framed, and subsequent framings have superseded them at regular intervals.
Economists have had much more limited success. Most of the research questions of the 1930s still have no consensus today. The same can't be said of successful, non-pathological sciences.
Well, they did develop things like game theory and information theory in those 80 years. They also went beyond Keynes (the serious ones).
The problem is that you can't make n experiments in economics to study a phenomenon, so many less bright (to use a kind word) economists get along with opinions and this damages the credibility of all.
But politicians know, today they have powerful tools to analyse their country economy. However, one thing is to know what's to be done, another things is convincing your voters, world of difference.
4 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 23.0 ms ] threadEconomists are sometimes chided for disagreeing about the importance of such basic questions as the relative role of aggregate demand and aggregate supply but physicists can’t even find most of the universe and microbiologists don’t agree on whether the human genome is 80% functional or 80% junk. Is disagreement a result of knaves and fools? Sometimes, but more often disagreement is just the way the invisible hand of science works.
Those we should no trust are the journalists playing the economists.
Physics, biology, and economics all framed certain problems centuries ago. Physics and biology have answered the questions as framed, and subsequent framings have superseded them at regular intervals.
Economists have had much more limited success. Most of the research questions of the 1930s still have no consensus today. The same can't be said of successful, non-pathological sciences.
The problem is that you can't make n experiments in economics to study a phenomenon, so many less bright (to use a kind word) economists get along with opinions and this damages the credibility of all.
But politicians know, today they have powerful tools to analyse their country economy. However, one thing is to know what's to be done, another things is convincing your voters, world of difference.