Macroeconomics is in a state of soul searching. Serious questions have to be answered for our discipline to remain relevant. Questions like "What happened a year ago?" and "Why did the Macroeconomists not see this coming?" are valid questions.
Here is David Brooks' take from the New York Times. Here is Greg Mankiw's take. Both sources I respect a great deal, and they are interesting perspectives but I am not sure I buy either of them personally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David Brooks' article was very interesting. He explained the different phases that economics has gone through, and that in the end there is no clear get solution or formula to predict or fully understand economics. At a time economics was thought to be an exact science and easily predictable, yet the recent financial crisis has changed everything. Brooks' argues that economists now are starting to question human rationality, human emotions, and even human activities. He said economics is moving towards being an art rather than a science. I believe this is true, yet this to some people has been evident for years. It is basically in a sense what politics have been for the past couple decades. Politics involves spending and generating money, yet during these processes Republicans and Democrats have their own views on human factors that can affect simple formulas and numbers. I am a Political Science major and learn many of the same issues as Economic majors, yet economists pride themselves on being able to use facts and numbers, while Poli-Sci majors generally think conceptually. If what Brooks is saying becomes true than I feel like these two subjects would be integrated into a new class which mixes aspects of both.
ReplyDelete