Quackroeconomics New Title, New Outline

The title might be:

Macroeconomics Ain’t So

It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.

–Will Rogers (?)

The outline might be:

1. Introduction

2. Macroeconomics as I experienced it (how macroeconomic thinking evolved in the 1970s and 1980s, with an autobiographical perspective)

3. Why classical macroeconomics ain’t so

4. Why folk Keynesian macroeconomics ain’t so

5. Why the liquidity trap ain’t so

6. Why the Hicksian IS-LM model ain’t so

7. Why the textbook AS-AD model ain’t so

8. Why Dark Age Macroeconomics ain’t so

9. Why PSST ain’t so, but still might be about the best we can do

11 thoughts on “Quackroeconomics New Title, New Outline

    • Not at all. RBC says that a recession is a negative productivity shock. PSST does not.

  1. I vaguely foresee that this project risks being accused of what I will perhaps very unfairly call “Manziism”: having demonstrated (to your own satisfaction) that opinions in an area do not have, and have no near term prospect of obtaining, rational foundation, you still have a lot of opinions on that subject anyway. This leads to the suspicion that you are inconsistent in applying standards of adequacy to the evidence and argument offered for different views.
    I imagine that you have quite a few practical views about macro–about what should be done and not done, what is likely to have the least bad consequences. Can whatever basis you have for those opinions withstand the level of critical scrutiny that you apply to other views? Just how much weight can be borne by the hesitant claim that PSST, though also false, may be the best we can do?
    But I would still eagerly pre-order the book, if I had an e-reader.

  2. This looks good. A good summary of what the blogosphere has learned over the years. I would be able to give it to friends. Think people who have read freakonomics. And thats about it.

  3. For chapter 2, have you considered starting earlier; say with Smith, or the 1930’s?
    E.g. I would view the evolution of economic development as:
    a. Racism (they are different)
    b. Capital (aka catch-up growth)
    c. Institutions (if only they had the rule of law)
    d. Trust / Culture (hopefully not back to a)

  4. This may be a repeat, but try:

    “Macroeconomics Falsifications”

    Although falsification is a test applied in “Science,” it can be applied to other forms of “ideas” (even though regarded otherwise by some).

  5. Quackroeconomics is a very catchy title. “Macroeconomics Ain’t So” would be a good subtitle.

Comments are closed.