I’m pretty down on economists these days. Actually, it’s “authoritative” public-policy macroeconomists that most invoke my ire. I’m not as bad as Nassim Taleb though. Among Taleb’s many econo-bombs, one from “Fooled by Randomness,” the first of his best-selling trilogy, is a favorite: “Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality.”

Relatedly, I have two beefs with policy-promoting macroeconomists. The first is that many consider their discipline a hard science, when it’s in fact anything but. Physical scientists often condescend that economists suffer from physics envy. And, as if to prove that, macroeconomics has evolved to very mathematically-sophisticated models, most of which prove quite naïve – as was amply demonstrated four and a half years ago. It’s a damn shame reality gets in the way of elegant models. Indeed, if you wish to study economics at the graduate level from a top school now, you better have the equivalent of an undergraduate math degree to even apply.

Register or login for access to this item and much more

All Information Management content is archived after seven days.

Community members receive:
  • All recent and archived articles
  • Conference offers and updates
  • A full menu of enewsletter options
  • Web seminars, white papers, ebooks

Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access