There seem to be few hard and fast rules in economics. Take the concept of
division of labour. We are all better off when we each take a specialist role and then trade with each other. This works well almost everywhere for all manner of goods and services. However, it doesn’t work when asking and answering big questions on economics.
Suppose I want to know the likely impact on inflation of current government policies. As it happens, I have been asking this question and doing some internet research. Economists are the specialists in this area and they have been working on this question for some time. According to economists, the answer is that hyperinflation is likely; or mild inflation; or no inflation; or prolonged deflation. The economics professional does not speak with a single voice on this question. I am left with the task of deciding for myself which, if any, of these answers is correct. Of course, in order to do this, I will first need to teach myself economics to the level of a Nobel prize-winner and then work through the pros and cons of the arguments for each answer. I may be some time.
I’m being a little unfair here, but only a little, so I have a dilemma. In order to make any progress, I need to use the knowledge of ‘the best’ economists, but it’s not at all clear to me which economists are ‘the best’. I need some criteria.
I have set out some criteria, including basic reasoning, below. I have not made any attempt at balance in these criteria. I do not know enough about the many schools of economic thought to achieve political, ideological or methodological balance.
Criteria for 'useful' economists
| Criterion | Description |
| Mainly macroeconomics | Economics is made up of top-down macroeconomics and bottom-up microeconomics. The questions I want to answer seem to be mostly macroeconomic questions. |
| Prediction track record | Economists who predicted the current crisis are more likely to have mental models that are consistent with the facts. Of course, they could have predicted the crisis through luck, so a longer track record is desirable. |
| Recognition of failings | Economists who have acknowledged openly the economics profession’s failings are more likely to be open to identifying problems and making improvements. |
| Good communications | Economists who talk in plain English are easier to understand than those who use abstract jargon. |
| Flow diagrams | Economists who use diagrams to demonstrate the flows of goods, services, information and money between the various stakeholders in the economy, are likely to be easier to understand than those who use only words. |
| Complex systems | Economists who use the language of complex systems are more likely to fit my own beliefs. |
| Trial and error | In the face of a complex system which demonstrates unpredictable behaviour, economists who advocate the use of experimentation, trial and error, and controlled experiments, are more likely to fit my own beliefs. |
I’ve been looking for economists who meet at least some of these criteria for a while. Here is my initial list of the economists from whom I’m hoping to learn:
As most of these economists have blogs and use Twitter, it’s easy to find their views. Some of them have boisterous arguments with their ideological and methodological opponents, so it’s easy to find alternative views as well.
There are lots of financial blogs on the internet. Here is Time magazine’s list of the
25 best financial blogs.
