Originally posted by Palynka
I respectfully disagree.
The first points clearly show what macro is at the moment and how radically different it is from Krugman's description. Krugman is a great economist, but he seems out of touch with modern macro and so makes his attack on it look foolish and completely negate Krugman's conclusion by showing that economist have been doing what he being against formalism or that macro should be more talk and less math. Quite the contrary.
I'm not arguing that macro-economics should become "more intuitive". I agree that the mathematical models play an extremely important role.
My point is that it's precisely because math plays such a vital role, I can easily see the experts "falling in love with their models". The discipline is going to attract people who are inherently "in love with math" - so I can very easily imagine such people overestimating how much of reality the models actually explain.
I can also see the experts "falling in love with the establishment" - especially when it effectively explains a lot of things. It becomes easy to dismiss dissenting views.
But these are just things that are part of human nature. I may be wrong about economists. Perhaps most or all are disciplined enough to rise above these tendencies. Perhaps.