[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-...