[rory096]

>Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religion more than a science. It's ridiculous we treat it as a science.

"A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"

[logfromblammo]

Of course not. Bullshit petrifies into coprolites, which would then only be found in sedimentary layers. And even then you could only find the appropriate types of coprolites in middle-Pleistocene layers from 2 Mya or later.

Of course, Keynesian geology continuously redefines the speed of time and the mass of the kilogram, such that if you look at a rock that classical geology says is 30g and deposited 10 Mya, the Keynesian might say it is 200g and 30 Megayears old. Then the Chicago geologist, the Marxist geologist, and the Austrian geologist would chime in: "No it isn't!" and have a grand bout of shouting and fisticuffs. Most hard sciences actually like their units of measurement to have constant value, and their data reduction calculations to remain the same.

Like, for instance, defining a US dollar to be the money value of a coin minted from 26.73g of .900 silver, and then never changing it again.

[cityhomesteader]

> "A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy.

That's the problem with all pseudosciences - politics, social sciences, etc. Everyone has an opinion and they can't provide any empirical tests to get at the truth.

That's the difference between a science like physics and a pseudoscience like economics.

It's why two economists with contradictory views can win a nobel prize at the same time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/business/3-american-profe...

It's fundamentally nonsense.

> Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'"

Because a geologist can show you that igneous rocks are not "bullshit". Empirically, physically. They can provide empirical tests to differentiate an igneous rock from bullshit.

[citrablue]

If economics is crap, what should we base economic and fiscal policies on?

[null000]

I think that the point is that "economist says" should be the beginning of a debate, not the end - it's a data point, but not conclusive evidence in favor of or against whatever's being referenced in most situations

[citrablue]

Unsure why you were downvoted - wasn't me.

What other inputs into the decision should be included? I'm kind of at a loss as to what other approaches would complement an economic one, even acknowledging the severe limitations of the discipline.

[rory096]

Over 60% of macro papers published are empirical. Hell, that article you linked includes the phrase "carefully assembled evidence."

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/an-empirical-turn-in-...