Create account

replied 823d
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
1 / 9 2
26,023
replied 823d
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 823d
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 823d
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 823d
Oversimplified: GR was developed by observing macroscopic phenomena (gravity mainly), QM was developed observing microscopic phenomena (elementary particles mainly).
1
1,023
replied 823d
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 822d
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 823d
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 822d
👍
replied 822d
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


About Privacy Terms Stats