Interesting question... are theories like plate tectonics or evolution considered "leading" by geologists or biologists, or are they seen as such by those outside the profession because they are accessible and (in their elementary versions) relatively comprehensible? I'm not sure why economics doesn't have one, but I'm also not sure why it should.Originally Posted by Entropy
Certainly there's a lack of predictive accuracy in economics, but that's true of many disciplines as well, particularly when you take them past the undergrad level and apply them to real world conditions. A geologist can tell you where earthquakes are likely to occur, but not when they will occur or how severe they will be. A meteorologist can tell me roughly how many typhoons are likely to emerge from the north Pacific, and can predict a general course for any given storm, but there's a wide margin of variance and they can't tell me how much rain a given storm is going to drop or where exactly it will go. We know the weather forecast is uncertain, but we don't ignore it.
I'm not an economist by trade and I've plenty of criticisms of the trade, excessive reliance on mathematical models and excessive disregard for non-quantifiable factors being prominent among them. At the same time, I recognize that they do provide a very useful and very important set of tools... wouldn't want to approach a complicated job with only those tools, but I wouldn't want to leave them behind either.
Worshiping economists and slavishly obeying their every word would be a huge mistake. Dismissing them and ignoring everything they say would be an equally huge mistake.
A great deal of what passes for economic discourse in the popular realm is contaminated with ideology and vested interest to a point that renders it meaningless.
I wouldn't bet any money on a popular revolt happening in the US any time soon. I'd likely bet against it, were I inclined toward betting.
Bookmarks