In contrast, I challenge you to put five economists into a room and ask a question about, say, auction theory. Do you still think you get five opinions?
> See some of the discussion around MMT for a practical example.
MMT is Macro, and Macro is bad. Any of it. The reason is that the assumptions of any Macro model, including MMT, are so excruciatingly far from reality that "formal theory" is difficult to do.
We have formal theory such that five economists who disagree know exactly where they disagree - on which assumption or axiom.
A theory that does not formulate out its assumptions or scope conditions, which sadly includes a lot of "heterodox models", can not be criticized at all. It may be right, it may be wrong, but we can find to common basis on which we agree or disagree.
> We have formal theory such that five economists who disagree know exactly where they disagree - on which assumption or axiom.
In practice economic debate usually degenerates into mud-slinging because there isn't a universal arbiter of what constitutes a good model. I don't think the saltwater-freshwater debate was particularly precise or reasoned.
> See some of the discussion around MMT for a practical example.
MMT is Macro, and Macro is bad. Any of it. The reason is that the assumptions of any Macro model, including MMT, are so excruciatingly far from reality that "formal theory" is difficult to do.
We have formal theory such that five economists who disagree know exactly where they disagree - on which assumption or axiom.
A theory that does not formulate out its assumptions or scope conditions, which sadly includes a lot of "heterodox models", can not be criticized at all. It may be right, it may be wrong, but we can find to common basis on which we agree or disagree.