"An American purchase of Greenland could be the deal of the century"
"The Lone Star State is soaring America's future will be made in Texas"

"Economists Are in the Wilderness. Can They Find a Way Back to Influence?"

As is typical of such articles this NY Times piece makes no distinction between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Macro--as I've noted a number of times--is very difficult.  (Though if Argentina continues to recover, score one for conservative macro.)  But economics has a lot of useful stuff to say about "micro" issues.  One example from recent news reports: in trying to cast a glow on the late President Carter's term, several pieces mentioned his successful deregulation of airlines and trucking. Both were heavily influenced by economic thinking. A more recent example, you ask? The old examples still work like (most) economists expect: "Seattle Set Minimum Wage Over $20 and You'll Totally Believe What Happened Next".

Comments