PB: When physicists really want to malign a new theory, we say,”It’s not even wrong.”.
What’s meant by that is, apparently, the new theory is so bizarre in its underlying constructs that one cannot even begin the usual process of looking for flawed assumptions, or math errors, which might be embarrassing, but don’t get you thrown out of the physics community.
I think in that context, a lot of macroeconomic thinking is not even wrong.
E: I quite realize that settling for criticism of the orthodoxy is inadequate when we need a new direction, but, at least in the spirit of Sun Tsu (“know your enemy”), the highly technical approaches and numerical simulation reviewed in this article are important tools to exploring the real world.
Me: “a lot of macroeconomic thinking is not even wrong.” This is correct regarding DSGE as Steve Keen has shown.
“I quite realize that settling for criticism of the orthodoxy is inadequate when we need a new direction, but, at least in the spirit of Sun Tsu (“know your enemy”), the highly technical approaches and numerical simulation reviewed in this article are important tools to exploring the real world.”
Yes, Sun Tsu’s writings are terrifically pungent because he dealt with the paradigms that rule the minds of individuals and direct their systems.
So far as “highly technical approaches” is concerned the system of double entry bookkeeping (DEBK) and its subset cost accounting are as basic and empirical as we can get so far as data is concerned upon which to do the calculus to show the various FLOWS of costs and free and available individual income to liquidate them (as opposed to those datums plus total loans which is obviously not free and clear individual income). Then a study of the digital nature of DEBK and the pricing and debt based money system is also enlightening in figuring out how to create policy to rectify the FLOW of the scarcity ratio between total free and available individual incomes and total costs/prices….that a cost accounting analysis will reveal.
It’s important to understand that this ratio IS the actual and inherent moment to moment reality of modern complex capital intensive productive systems for several reasons most especially the flow of additional costs of depreciation on the fixed capital necessary for its high productivity. It’s also important one realize that hopping out of the present moment as is the capability of humans, and saying that “eventually” an equilibrium of that scarcity ratio is possible. The economy doesn’t have a mind that can jump out of the moment and imagine that it will eventually be okay. Rather it takes policy to rectify the problem in the form of a COSTLESS flow of additional individual income (a universal dividend) to closely approximate equilibrium…..and a digital policy of a high percentage discount/rebate at retail sale….in order for such policies to transform the scarcity reality into a higher inversion/disequilibrium/abundance ratio and so elevate those policies to the level of paradigm change.