Scott Adams explains why economists are useful

The creator of Dilbert justifies my profession:

If you think it is okay to ignore economists because they are so often wrong, you're looking at the wrong questions. Economists are generally wrong with complicated models but right about concepts. . . .

By analogy, a mechanic knows that changing your oil is good for your engine, but he can't tell you what problems you will have with your car next year. You shouldn't ignore the mechanic's advice on changing oil just because he doesn't know when your battery will die, or because he didn't personally perform any scientific studies on oil changes.

Doctors are often wrong, but you are still better off going to the doctor than diagnosing problems yourself. And when you get the opinions of several doctors, your odds improve, even if those several doctors aren't a scientific sample. The important thing is that following a doctor's advice, or the consensus of several doctors, increases your odds compared to the alternative. And the more doctors the better.
   

Comments

[kyle8]

Actually I think there is a fair amount of consensus among Economists nowadays. Maybe not on policy, but at least on basic principles.

I don't know of any Economist, for instance, who was not sounding the alarm on the housing industry for some time now. And I haven't heard any of them who are OK with the remedies that are being cooked up right now in Washington.

When Robert Reich and Lawrence Kudlow can agree on those things, then that is quite a broad range of agreement.(I know, Kudlow is not an academic economist, but close enough for government work.)