Ummmm... I was reacting to your *characterization* of economics,
from several notes back, which was:
> The thing about economics is that in the long run, pretty much anything can
> be *explained* by it. However, predicting with economics is a hell of a
> lot trickier, because there are very few people (if anyone) who can
> realistically factor in *all* the relevant variables. That's why
> predictive economics is pretty much a crapshoot of who's got the best model
> (determined conclusively only after the fact) - which is, afterall, just a
I think we agree that individual economic models can be falsified; my
complaint, I guess, is that I don't see much value in "theories" so
general that they can "explain" anything post hoc. It's not that I
think all of economics is worthless, just that you seem to be holding
them to too low a standard, particularly given the enormous influence
they have over policy decisions these days.
> I think my stand on this is pretty clear. Arguing any further doesn't seem
> likely to get us anywhere, unless you honestly feel there's more to be
> added, I think I'm through...
Yup. It's dead, Jim.