I feel better now...

In light of my last post, it's comforting to know that even the economists don't know what they're talking about -- or at least, can't agree on what the facts are or what the theories mean. Check out this from Peter B. Meyer on The Gristmill blog:

And you wondered why you couldn't understand economics? You thought it was your problem. But what if the problem lies in the economics?

Don't worry if two analyses don't seem to be consistent. Accept that they are not, and look for the assumptions that lead them in different directions.

(The devil is not in the details, but in the assumptions ... but finding those devils requires digging into the details.)

When we make policy decisions without looking at which economics is guiding us, we have a problem. We make inconsistent decisions, we make foolish decisions, and, perhaps worst, we defer decisions because the results confuse us so much we can't decide which way to turn.

Meyer promises to continue posting on this theme of examining different schools of economics -- so maybe I get my wish after all. Meanwhile, I can't help but think of a title from one of my favorite philosophers: Whose Justice? Which Rationality? MacIntyre's writing is a fair slog, but the point is that when competing systems of rationality (Meyer's assumptions) come into conflict, there are actually ways of sorting them out -- one generally does a better job of accounting for the problems of justice in the real world. Which in the end isn't too far away from what economics is supposed to be about.