 |
| Economics: Predict, then rationalize! |
One doesn't usually look to the NYTimes editorial page for a critique of liberal economics, but we are, of late, living in "interesting times".
Two professors, Alex Rosenberg and Tyler Curtain (Duke and UNC-CH respectively), held forth on "What Is Economics Good For?" in the August 25, 2013 issue as follows:
"The fact that the discipline of economics hasn't helped us improve our predictive abilities suggests it is still far from being a science, and may never be. In fact, when it comes to economic theory's track record, there isn't much predictive success to speak of at all."
"Moreover, many economists (like many examiners) don't seem troubled when they make predictions that go wrong. Readers of Paul Krugman and other like-minded commentators are familiar with their repeated complaints about the refusal of economists (and examiners) to revise their theories in the face of recalcitrant facts."
"The refusal to revise their theories (or listen!) in the face of recalcitrant facts..."
 |
| Bullet points... |
"Economists' expertise (much like examiners') is still a matter of craft. They must avoid the hubris of thinking their theory is perfectly suited to the task, while employing it wisely enough to produce some harmony amid the cacophony."
Predicting wisdom and harmony?
No comments:
Post a Comment