The Dismal Science

     It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with macroeconomic theory is not the various and sundry theories nearly so much as it is the ability of facile politicians to slap the names of the theories on whatever crazy nonsense they want to try, which is usually ill-considered borrowing, austerity that somehow never touches the top ten percent, deficit spending, or running the printing presses overtime at the national mint.

     Having created a mess, they then point at it proudly or in alarm, and explain that it's "post-Keynesian metallism," or "nuclear chartalism," or "socialist capitalism," or some other high-sounding tag.  Afterwards, there's a rush of economists, some of them proclaiming, Oh No It Is Not, or pointing to the parts of the label they dislike most and explaining That's What's Wrong With This Fool Notion and even one of two trying to clear up that what actually went on was more like random meddling.  Nobody ever listens except for economics students, and most of them are thinking about what kind of bow tie they're going to wear for the TV interviews once they have a PhD and a best-selling popular-account book that explains why every other economist is wrong.

     Except for the one time in a thousand when politicians take economists seriously, and pile up heaps of corpses trying to make people fit the theory.

     And somehow, when we manage to dodge that, the rest of us end up doing the same old, same old, for the same old pay.  My only consolation is that there are very few rich economists -- and I can't help but suspect we might be better off if there were fewer rich politicians, too.