Come on, guys, somebody take it to the Next Step.
Matt Y comes closer than anyone else to getting to the truth of the problem with Macroeconomics. Following Justin FoxSteven Levitt's summary, Matt asks the next question:
So why should it be that "in the current regime, if [macro models] are not meticulously constructed from 'micro foundations,' they aren’t allowed to be considered"?
There's a hint in the title of this post.
Edited to fix attribution.
Related Posts by Categories
21st Century economic philosophy- PSA: D-Squared Rivals Quiggin
- When in Crisis, Insult Sociologists?
- Verklaerte KristolNacht
- If You're Marking a Curve, you need to identify an equilibrium point
- The Measured Version of My Screaming
- Norman Borlaug, Michael Jackson, and the Invisible Hand
- Coming Soon from Major Economists Near You
- Quote of the Day, esp. for Economic Modelling
- Mark Cuban Makes the Key Point
- A/l/a/n/ C/a/r/u/b/a/ Milt Shook Explains It All
- I'm Not Here
- The Hoover Institution
- What is competition?
- DeLong, Thoma, Rodrik et al. Do Good
- A Response to Megan McArdle, Again (by cactus)
- The Problem with Macro is Micro
- QOTD, and a bookmark for a future post
- Simple Answers to Simple Questions, CRA edition
- A Short Note on Optimality
- I Remember When Mankiw was still a Neo-Keynesian
- UnReal Business Cycle
- Yankee Interlude
- And Here I Thought Corporations were Rational
- 1,121 Words on Bruce's Post, with footnote
Post a Comment