

Should we trust Economists? - sravfeyn
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/should-we-trust-economists/276497/

======
kfk
Of course we should, from here
([http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/the...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/the-
battle-over-junk-dna.html), last paragraph):

 _Economists are sometimes chided for disagreeing about the importance of such
basic questions as the relative role of aggregate demand and aggregate supply
but physicists can’t even find most of the universe and microbiologists don’t
agree on whether the human genome is 80% functional or 80% junk. Is
disagreement a result of knaves and fools? Sometimes, but more often
disagreement is just the way the invisible hand of science works._

Those we should no trust are the journalists playing the economists.

~~~
scarmig
World of difference.

Physics, biology, and economics all framed certain problems centuries ago.
Physics and biology have answered the questions as framed, and subsequent
framings have superseded them at regular intervals.

Economists have had much more limited success. Most of the research questions
of the 1930s still have no consensus today. The same can't be said of
successful, non-pathological sciences.

~~~
kfk
Well, they did develop things like game theory and information theory in those
80 years. They also went beyond Keynes (the serious ones).

The problem is that you can't make n experiments in economics to study a
phenomenon, so many less bright (to use a kind word) economists get along with
opinions and this damages the credibility of all.

But politicians know, today they have powerful tools to analyse their country
economy. However, one thing is to know what's to be done, another things is
convincing your voters, world of difference.

