Chapter starts with a quote which ill read to you in its entirety. This talks about economics specifically wrong and microeconomics talks about things economists a wrorng about generally. Jokes aside, i dont think that does justice to the profession. I think in micro, i believe that is well published on which most academics agree, and by the standard of social sciences, a rigorous way of settling this agreement that is some scope for rigorous conclusive agreement, and they like to say micro is one true theory with many applications and macro has no true opinions. I think thats a fair assessment. Think about basic social relevant policy questions like did the obama stimulus, the agent of 2009 increase employment or not . If not, was it because it was too big or too small . It becomes really remotely resembling the policy question, and so theres always a lot of answers surrounding the answer, notwithstanding the fairly certain claims made by people who sort of know or think they know for
New-york
United-states
Canada
Japan
Australia
Hiroshima
China
Indiana
Austria
New-zealand
London
City-of