[noir-york]

It is pretty effective as long as you ignore the economic theories espoused by the Cato institute (the institution the author forms part of) and other pseudo think-tanks.

Interesting to note that the author tries to discredit Keynesian economics, but makes no mention of the Reinhart / Rogoff debacle that completely undermined their paper which purported to show a link between debt and growth - a paper much referenced by people like the author of the article who are primarily interested in using economics as a fig leaf for their ideology.

For the record, I trained in politics and economics.

[partiallypro]

I also trained in politics and economics, and worked for a think-tank doing economic impact analysis for a short period. And I will tell you that Cato has a lot of good economists, that are well respected in their field; so do -most- think tanks, and Federal Reserve branches. Every economist has a political view, largely because economic policy is largely political. Krugman is a political hack, but that doesn't mean his papers are trade can be discounted, that would be absurd.

The reason economic theory is so hard is because it's very hard to observe and experiment. You can run a test and verify in physics, math, etc, but in economics this is generally impossible. Even the boom in behavioral economics that happened in the mid-2000s has come under question after more and more data has emerged. There are a LOT of things economists agree on, but there's also nuances on how a policy can achieve a result...because there are so many actors in an economy and we can't test our theory until maybe 10 years from now, and that's even if the policy is ever implemented to begin with.