i'm taking macro right now (a bit late, for an econ major) and while i'm studying rather simplified models, they are abridged from more complex theory that is in practice today and have been for the past half a century.
james grant, with no more than rhetorical and "gut" arguments, tries to blast years of economic research, empirical studies and practice. it's akin to creationists blasting evolution, a theory accepted by most all of academia, without bothering to study the intricracies of biological development.
that is what i think. for the theory i speak of, check out any macro textbook by n. gregory mankiw.
not to say i'm not skeptical of modern economics (what am i NOT skeptical about?). sometimes i feel like the models assume too much or leave out important variables, such as social welfare which is hard to measure in the nominal sense, and non-growth benefits. i understand they are trying to stick to science, as they say, rather than get muddled in morals and philosophy.
still, the study of economics still facinate me and i think a good part of my skepticism is due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. all i can do is keep reading and absorbing, and in the meantime trust that these professional economists know what they are doing.
Comments 3
(Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing, I'm just interested.)
Reply
james grant, with no more than rhetorical and "gut" arguments, tries to blast years of economic research, empirical studies and practice. it's akin to creationists blasting evolution, a theory accepted by most all of academia, without bothering to study the intricracies of biological development.
that is what i think. for the theory i speak of, check out any macro textbook by n. gregory mankiw.
Reply
still, the study of economics still facinate me and i think a good part of my skepticism is due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. all i can do is keep reading and absorbing, and in the meantime trust that these professional economists know what they are doing.
Reply
Leave a comment