Robert reminds us that "First question BTW was are economists better at analysing the past than predicting the future?"
The mainstream is necessarily rubbish at both, because of their dogmatic (in both senses) commitment to equilibrium (of which the current cutting edge are so-called Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models).
To illustrate my claim I point to the new Cambridge University Press textbook catalogue in economics, business and management, in which the second, third and fourth entries are
Modeling Monetary Economics (Champ et al): "Simplifies the economy by starting with two markets in general equilibrium"
Principles of Financial Economics (LeRoy and Werner): "Stresses the link between financial economics and equilibrium theory"
Dynamic Economic Analysis (Sorger): "popular model structures and solution concepts ... dynamic general equilibrium frameworks"
For an accessible antidote to this nonsense, see my colleague Steve Keen's work, especially his book "Debunking Economics"; this YouTube video provides a flavour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY
Julian
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|