[escepticos] Re: Nuestra eterna discusión sobre la validez de la economía

[Pedro J. Hdez]

2012/7/30 Pedro J. Hdez <phergont en gmail.com>:
> Un post interesante
> (http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/which-macro-economists-are-worth.html)
> donde se recomiendan los macroeconomista a seguir y los que no están
> dando una. Entre estos últimos se destaca
>
> those responsible for writing editorials at the Financial Times,
> macroeconomic forecasters at the OECD, the European Department at the
> IMF (up until recently - their recent stuff on both UK and eurozone
> has been pretty good) , the senior leadership at the Bank of England
> and the Treasury, and probably worst of all senior economic
> policymakers at the ECB and European Commission.  Oh, and the credit
> ratings agencies, but that goes without saying.
>
> Lo que les falta a toda esta peña según el autor del post
>
> those commenting on economic issues who got it completely wrong,
> usually because they were using analytic frameworks that were
> incoherent or lacked empirical evidence.
>
> De lo que deduzco que los que hacen buenos análisis utilizan
> herramientas analíticas y evidencia empírica (léase a Krugman por
> ejemplo) y que por lo tanto se puede hacer mala economía como se puede
> hacer mala ciencia, lo que implica que existe buena economía igual que
> existe buena ciencia.

Sin embargo, justo después de escribir esto encuentro a Paul Krugman
matizando http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/who-to-listen-to/

One side note: One thing that’s striking in Portes’s discussion — and
something I very much agree with — is the irrelevance of formal
credentials. As we’ve debated how to deal with the worst slump since
the 1930s, a distressing number of economists have taken to arguing on
the basis that they have fancy degrees and you don’t — or in some
cases that well, you may have a fancy degree too, and even a prize or
two, but in the wrong sub-field, so there.

But all this counts for very little, especially when macroeconomics
itself — or at any rate the kind of macroeconomics that has dominated
the journals these past couple of decades — is very much on trial. And
note Portes’s praise for Martin Wolf, which I heartily second; Wolf
doesn’t even have a PhD. And that matters not at all; what he has is a
keen sense of observation, a level head, and an open mind, all
attributes lacking in far too many of my colleagues.

Resumiendo si quieren: Navarro no tiene por qué ser necesariamente un
magufo por no contar con las credenciales que le gustan a los de
Fedea.  QED ;)

saludos

Pedro J.
>
>
> saludos
>
>
> --
> Pedro J. Hernández
> http://ecos.blogalia.com
> @ecosdelfuturo



-- 
Pedro J. Hernández
http://ecos.blogalia.com
@ecosdelfuturo