Create account

817d
There’s no such thing as macroeconomics
2 / 24 3
2,956
replied 816d
"There's no such thing as tables. Only quarks and electrons."
1
1,023
replied 816d
If you want a physics equivalent, it's more like: "there's no such thing as astrology, only astronomy".
3
10,238
replied 816d
I can get on board with that.
I have not studied econ. But my outsider's view is that Micro seems to be a well-understood, quantitative science.
2
26,023
replied 816d
While Macro, OTOH, necessarily involves much more psychology, sociology, and other things disciplines that still lack predictive quantitative models (eg, equations that Actually Work)
2
26,023
replied 816d
Bingo
1
1,023
replied 817d
Explain
1
25,000
replied 817d
Microeconomics is real economics. Macroeconomics is made up to imply there's some magical line you cross where it switches from real economics to fantasy economics.
2
1,623
replied 817d
Forces of supply and demand apply no matter how big of an economy you're dealing with. "Macroeconomics" was invented by socialists/Keynesians.
6
17,004
replied 816d
While I share your contempt for Keynesian economics, and while "macroeconomics" in particular could be just keynesian nonsense (I don't know), I would still think that there should
2
26,023
replied 816d
be room for a macroscopic view of things. The science analog I would use to suggest this is Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity. QM is super accurate for small things.
1
1,023
replied 816d
QM is also demonstrated to scale beyond the "micro" realm:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-quantum-drum-brings-quantum-mechanics-to-the-macroscale
https://archive.fo/VSLWc
1
1,023
replied 816d
I didn't check the links, but generally your sentiment is true, QM effects can be see on large scale, GR effects can be seen on small scale. But my point is their "roots" are different
2
2,047
replied 816d
Oversimplified: GR was developed by observing macroscopic phenomena (gravity mainly), QM was developed observing microscopic phenomena (elementary particles mainly).
1
1,023
replied 816d
That is, at least the "mainly" parts I wrote there are "oversimplifications at best". GR was maybe mainly developed by thought experiments with regards to light speed.
1
1,023
replied 815d
Truth, yes.
QM is an enigma:
1. QM looks like something a menstruating witch on shrooms dreamt up.
2. So randomly often QM seems to correlate things we never imagined correlated.
replied 816d
GR is super accurate for big things. They do not combine well, but until we have a theory of everything (if ever), both approaches bring important insights for the complete picture.
1
1,023
replied 816d
👍
replied 815d
I agree GR works better for big things and QM better for small. But in the case of economics micro works better for both big and small
replied 817d
Macro Is the Government intervention on the free market
2
26,023
replied 817d
Macro is the excuse for intervention. But no matter how much they intervene, "free" market forces still apply.
2
2,134
replied 817d
"Experts" on macroeconomics are consistently wrong in their predictions. Microeconomics explains everything, even at a global scale.
2
2,047
replied 817d
See Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking to get a clear view of the global economy in microeconomic terms: https://mises.org/library/mystery-banking
2
14,356
replied 817d
Gonna Read It, thanks
1
25,000
replied 817d
A Picture of it


About Privacy Terms Stats