Menzie Chinn had a great post a week-and-a-half ago addressing the hot topic of the state of macroeconomics. This is something that Jason and I have discussed as well (post 1, post 2, post 3). Chinn has some great analysis of why macro is still very relevant and informative despite many perceived failures in the press. His two main points that jumped out at me were the following:
1) The first dimension on which you should rate any macroeconomic (or any economic) research is "How good is the question?" This is something that was always driven home to me by my macroeconomic professors at the University of Texas. Chinn emphasizes that methodology should follow from the question, not vice versa.
2) "...[T]he supposed failure of macroeconomics is more the failure of macroeconomics as described in the popular press, rather than of the discipline itself...."
1) The first dimension on which you should rate any macroeconomic (or any economic) research is "How good is the question?" This is something that was always driven home to me by my macroeconomic professors at the University of Texas. Chinn emphasizes that methodology should follow from the question, not vice versa.
2) "...[T]he supposed failure of macroeconomics is more the failure of macroeconomics as described in the popular press, rather than of the discipline itself...."
