Hi Bradford,



In economics, like almost everything else, there is theory and there is reality.



And there are truly some wonderful theories out there.



The Soviet constitution was a beautiful political model, wonderful reading, and could've been a great way to govern a 3rd-world or 2nd-world power. But nobody bothered to read it. And if they did, they didn't bother to carry out its requirements. Consequently, it remained a beautiful theory that was never tested out in reality. Soviet politicians were 'winging it' the whole time, reacting to events using a mix of pragmatism, ad-hoc problem solving, military command and control decision making and political favoritism. But hey, it worked for a time. Some of the most wonderful political writing was done by Marx and Lenin -- but it is the rare jurisdiction that bothered to implement those beautiful theories to see if they really worked.



As you can see, I'm not a big fan of theory.



Experience is the best teacher and a reality-based world is always better than arcane theory -- no matter how flowery the language or how noble the ideals. See above example.



"When policymakers turn to economists for guidance, they expect the advice they receive to be grounded in science, not academic factionalism or political presuppositions. After all, the policies they will be putting in place will have real implications for real people. Unfortunately, however, sound science is not always the driving force behind economic analysis and policy recommendations." -- J. Bradford DeLong



Therefore, what economists should be doing, is providing reality-based guidance, not arcane theory, nor even untested theory.



You can't argue with success. And those economic models that succeed should always be the default advice to policymakers from economists.



Never in our history have we had the completely accurate databases we now have. You name it, and we can describe it, track it in real time, look back and project forward in time.



And for economists, that is by far the greatest advantage the profession has ever enjoyed.



Why can't every country be like Norway? It has over $1 trillion dollars cash in the bank due to their resource revenue taxation, it has free university education for Norwegians and anyone else who wants to live there and pay their own living expenses, it had the 7th highest rated healthcare system in the world, its per capita PPP income is ranked 2nd in the world, its productivity index is the highest in Europe, its life expectancy, quality of life, UN Happiness Index, its SPI (index) rankings are all off the charts -- and so much more.



Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Australia, and others rank very highly in these and other categories.



We have working models.



Noted economist and expert statistician Mark Thoma (University of Oregon) who crunches macro and micro numbers daily, could provide an uber-accurate snapshot of any economy or economic model (the Nordic model, for example) historically, in real time, and forecast economic statistics -- and make it look easy.



Why are we not taking advantage of such national treasures?



Instead of spending countless hours to arrive at new and arcane theory, we should be phoning Mark Thoma and his group to politely ask them what is actually working every day of the year out there in the greater world -- that we could quickly adapt/adopt to our economy to make it perform better -- solving a raft of other problems while we're at it.



'How to improve income opportunities for bottom quintile people while lowering policing/court/incarceration/drug use costs to society?' seems like the kind of question that other countries may have answers to, that UofO could study/issue reports to economists about.



Or; 'What is the payback time for federal government stimulus vs. state stimulus?' perhaps stimulus at the state level is more efficient, or the payback is quicker. Something to look at.



There are far more answers than questions could ever be imagined; And people like Mark Thoma and the UofO are a dramatically underutilized resource.



Statistics are the result of actual data, translated into meaningful form, that can show us what is actually working out there and what has a good track record of success that we could adapt to our economy via guidance to policymakers from economists.



Which is so much better than arcane or untested economic theory.



Thank you for illuminating us on this, Bradford.



As always, best regards, JBS