Will macroeconomics ever be as concrete and intuitive as microeconomics?

[phk]

What do you think?

[RI]

Macroeconomics seems fairly intuitive. What exactly do you mean?

[phk]

Macroeconomics seems fairly intuitive. What exactly do you mean?

There is a lot of controversy and debate concerning ideology still within Macro that's nearly absent in Micro. Almost as if Micro is close to being completely researched and finalized.

[RI]

The difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics is, that while micro is mostly focused on how things are and how they affect each other, macro, though it has elements of that, tends to ask focus on how things should be, which in its very nature is a subjective exercise. Whenever you start talking about how things should be, you will always reach disagreements.

Furthermore, a lot of people have a tendency to be very inductive when they talk about macroeconomics. They start with notions about the world and use macroeconomics to back it up, as opposed to starting with macroeconomic relationships and building a worldview from the inside out.

There are many things that most people can agree on in macroeconomics, such as that decreasing taxation helps businesses grow, increasing spending can raise the price level, decreasing spending increases unemployment, and raising interest rates cuts down on investment. The problem lies when we ask ourselves what of these things should we do, and when. Simply because there are so many views has lead to a lack of undeniable case studies that could obviously point to one way of doing things over another, allowing the debate to perpetuate.

There is just so much that we don't understand about the economic organism as a whole, and unless there is some obvious event that shows us the way, I can't see people's opinions and their interests leading to some consensus on macroeconomics any time soon.

[phk]

The difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics is, that while micro is mostly focused on how things are and how they affect each other, macro, though it has elements of that, tends to ask focus on how things should be, which in its very nature is a subjective exercise. Whenever you start talking about how things should be, you will always reach disagreements.

This I agree with, but Macro and Micro aren't inherently normative or positive, just what people who want to discuss them feel like. Macro perhaps is more inherently normative due to it's tendency to attract politics. Academic macro discussion is much more positive though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. Most people label themselves first and think about what they labeled themselves later (on this forum especially). Which is a bit backwards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. Building a cumulative model is a bit too hard I suppose. I do think most structural macro is already figured out though.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

[phk]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

many people thought that the early economic success of the soviet union would continue, and thus making such a conjecture wasn't entirely unfounded.

[phk]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

many people thought that the early economic success of the soviet union would continue, and thus making such a conjecture wasn't entirely unfounded.

Sure, but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012.  Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about "bad weather" in the Soviet Union.

Among libertarians, this story has long been the subject of much informal amusement.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

many people thought that the early economic success of the soviet union would continue, and thus making such a conjecture wasn't entirely unfounded.

Sure, but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012.  Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about "bad weather" in the Soviet Union.

Among libertarians, this story has long been the subject of much informal amusement.

Why Samuelson make these assumptions?

[phk]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

many people thought that the early economic success of the soviet union would continue, and thus making such a conjecture wasn't entirely unfounded.

Sure, but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012.  Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about "bad weather" in the Soviet Union.

Among libertarians, this story has long been the subject of much informal amusement.

Why Samuelson make these assumptions?

The USSR gave economic numbers.

You were either A.) Skeptical or B.) Took them as truth.

The A.'s were right in the end.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

What do you think?

Honestly I am disappointed with how Neoclassical economics has been considered untouchable in the past 30 years or so, and I am surprised that economics has become more dogmatic ever since this country has started to become more conservative. One would have thought that Academia would have been shielded from the political process,but unfortunately it was not.

One of the worst things to emerge during mccarthyism, and the red scares is that various macroeconomic textbooks were rejected because they were considered to be communist. For example Paul Samuelson's most famous work was almost rejected because some considered it to have socialist influences.

Samuelson also said Soviet GDP would exceed American GDP by 1997 in his 1961 Principle's textbook.

many people thought that the early economic success of the soviet union would continue, and thus making such a conjecture wasn't entirely unfounded.

Sure, but it gets worse because in subsequent editions Samuelson presented the same analysis again and again except the overtaking time was always pushed further into the future so by 1980 the dates were 2002 to 2012.  Samuelson provided no acknowledgment of his past failure to predict and little commentary beyond remarks about "bad weather" in the Soviet Union.

Among libertarians, this story has long been the subject of much informal amusement.

Why Samuelson make these assumptions?

The USSR gave economic numbers.

You were either A.) Skeptical or B.) Took them as truth.

The A.'s were right in the end.

I would have been A)skeptical,but it is still pretty factual that the USSR did develop a strong industry in the 30's. I did a management paper on the soviet union and what I discovered is that the problem was supply, and thus everything had to be built at the last second.

Economists in the soviet Union were not allowed to learn anything outside of marxist/socialist economic planing. Fortunately they were allowed to study econometrics, and from this they were able to learn many things about capitalism.

[ag]

Macroeconomics seems fairly intuitive. What exactly do you mean?

Almost as if Micro is close to being completely researched and finalized.

Wow! That´s quite a statement I wish! Then, no: it would have been so boring.

[Torie]

No! 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.  With macroeconomics, there are way too many variables, including societal issues that are way too complex to ever be nailed down to be an exact science.

[Torie]

No.  With macroeconomics, there are way too many variables, including societal issues that are way too complex to ever be nailed down to be an exact science.

It is more of a dreary black box exercise (just try to capture past correlations in variables and their changes, and dump it into a computer, and out spits some "answer"), and not fun at all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.  With macroeconomics, there are way too many variables, including societal issues that are way too complex to ever be nailed down to be an exact science.

It is more of a dreary black box exercise (just try to capture past correlations in variables and their changes, and dump it into a computer, and out spits some "answer"), and not fun at all.

I enjoyed my macroeconomics class this past semester.

[ag]

No.  With macroeconomics, there are way too many variables, including societal issues that are way too complex to ever be nailed down to be an exact science.

It is more of a dreary black box exercise (just try to capture past correlations in variables and their changes, and dump it into a computer, and out spits some "answer"), and not fun at all.

I enjoyed my macroeconomics class this past semester.

Undergrad? Was it all about IS/LM? If yes, you may be happy to learn, that your own professor considered it... well, for lack of a better word,... very obsolete ))

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Undergrad - Intro to Macroeconomics.

We learned about the loanable funds market, product market, labor (I almost spelled that "Labour" out of habbit from last week) market, GDP, unemployment.  We never did anything with IS/LM models though.

[ag]

Undergrad - Intro to Macroeconomics.

We learned about the loanable funds market, product market, labor (I almost spelled that "Labour" out of habbit from last week) market, GDP, unemployment.  We never did anything with IS/LM models though.

Well, you didn't loose much: what's normally taught in intermediate Macro is ancient stuff, which not even the textbook authors believe in.  Intro to Macro has a lot of nice stuff, usually, but, unfortunately, we don't really know how to talk about a lot of it seriously.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Undergrad - Intro to Macroeconomics.

We learned about the loanable funds market, product market, labor (I almost spelled that "Labour" out of habbit from last week) market, GDP, unemployment.  We never did anything with IS/LM models though.

Well, you didn't loose much: what's normally taught in intermediate Macro is ancient stuff, which not even the textbook authors believe in.  Intro to Macro has a lot of nice stuff, usually, but, unfortunately, we don't really know how to talk about a lot of it seriously.

I may take intermediate soon.  I really need to figure out if I want to add economics as a minor, what I want to do with my life, etc...

[phk]

Undergrad - Intro to Macroeconomics.

We learned about the loanable funds market, product market, labor (I almost spelled that "Labour" out of habbit from last week) market, GDP, unemployment.  We never did anything with IS/LM models though.

Well, you didn't loose much: what's normally taught in intermediate Macro is ancient stuff, which not even the textbook authors believe in.  Intro to Macro has a lot of nice stuff, usually, but, unfortunately, we don't really know how to talk about a lot of it seriously.

I may take intermediate soon.  I really need to figure out if I want to add economics as a minor, what I want to do with my life, etc...

I'm unlearning intermediate macro right now and studying graduate level from Advanced Macroeconomics book by Romer.