Majanduse ja ilma ennustajad - kumb on usaldusväärsem?

Mulle meeldib majandusteadus, kuid mitte see, kuidas seda paljudes kohtades õpetatakse.

Olen varem paaril korral juba peatunud majandusteaduse liigsele matemaatilisusel ja nagu iga endast lugupidav blogija otsin interneti avarustest enda veendumustele pidevalt kinnitust...inimlik nõrkus. Nüüd, kus leidsin Blowhards blogist postituse teemal Is Something the Matter With Economics? on taas võimalus (vähemalt minul) kaasa noogutada ja tõdeda, et tõsi ta on.

Blowhards'i postitusele annab kaalu tõsiasi, et tegu on kahe raamatu ülevaatega, kus erinevad majandusteadlased lahkavad enda valdkonna olemuslike probleeme ja spekuleerivad selle üle, mis suunas valdkond võiks areneda. Postituse autor tsiteerib mitmeid majandusteadlasi ning lõpuks käib välja ka enda huvitavad mõtisklused:

As it does so often, it seems to be up to us -- as in "us, the general public" -- to know how to take the experts. IMHO, we need to know a bit about econ if only to be better able to defend ourselves against the economics professionals. (Especially the lofty Godhead wannabes.) One of the reasons I'm a fan of Arnold Kling and of Marginal Revolution is their tone: open, searching, not overly preoccupied with winning debates or having last words, and respectful of the larger context we all operate in and share.

FWIW, I think of economics as resembling meteorology. Like the weatherguys, economists know a lot, and have a lot that's interesting to tell us. But can a weatherguy's predictions be taken seriously once they extend beyond a very short range? We have no trouble enjoying and making use of the work of meteorologists while being wary of analytical or predictive claims that are too grand. We know that the weather is infinitely complex, and that meteorologists will never master it. Yet we give economists much more credence than we do weatherguys.