It seems to me that this is important stuff—that people really should know it before they begin studying economics, because it would make studying economics much easier. But it also seems to me...
Thank you for this. My algebra and geometry are more than fifty years in the rearview mirror, but I hope I got the gist.
I am sure you have covered this somewhere, but I think it would also be interesting to discuss more explicitly the sociology of the economics profession itself. Such a discussion would make it easier for an interested layperson to understand how the Three Tempers (social, quantitative, abstract) interact within the profession and how that interaction affects the way in which an interested layperson should understand economists’ public pronouncements on macroeconomic policy.
For example, I recall vividly the stimulus wars in the wake of the Great Recession between people like Taylor and Cochrane on one hand and Krugman, Stiglitz and you on the other. How is that kind of disagreement even possible in a quantitative and abstract profession (I mean, I guess I pretty much know how (I practiced corporate law for forty years, and I’ve seen a few things), but the fact that it exists is perhaps not generally appreciated outside the profession)?
It also would be interesting to know more about how the master practitioners of the quantitative and abstracts arts came to occupy the highest mountains of the profession (academia and the most important journals), largely to the exclusion of those of a more sociological bent.
Similarly, why does the rest of the profession not speak in one voice in denouncing Kevin Hassett and Larry Kudlow? Why does anyone still believe or pretend to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves?
But, in any case, an interesting and informative essay.
About models: Everybody uses models; economists are just more explicit about it.
In the calculation of Y/E = 5xE, am I missing a + sign or is my pea brain 70 years away from algebra.
Thank you for this. My algebra and geometry are more than fifty years in the rearview mirror, but I hope I got the gist.
I am sure you have covered this somewhere, but I think it would also be interesting to discuss more explicitly the sociology of the economics profession itself. Such a discussion would make it easier for an interested layperson to understand how the Three Tempers (social, quantitative, abstract) interact within the profession and how that interaction affects the way in which an interested layperson should understand economists’ public pronouncements on macroeconomic policy.
For example, I recall vividly the stimulus wars in the wake of the Great Recession between people like Taylor and Cochrane on one hand and Krugman, Stiglitz and you on the other. How is that kind of disagreement even possible in a quantitative and abstract profession (I mean, I guess I pretty much know how (I practiced corporate law for forty years, and I’ve seen a few things), but the fact that it exists is perhaps not generally appreciated outside the profession)?
It also would be interesting to know more about how the master practitioners of the quantitative and abstracts arts came to occupy the highest mountains of the profession (academia and the most important journals), largely to the exclusion of those of a more sociological bent.
Similarly, why does the rest of the profession not speak in one voice in denouncing Kevin Hassett and Larry Kudlow? Why does anyone still believe or pretend to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves?
But, in any case, an interesting and informative essay.