They did a bad job. Did they predict economic collapse or sub prime crisis? No. They were part of it. USA is a hype. Americans with no knowledge abt financial investmetns (most of the Americans are duds anyways) end up losing money with the hype created by few economists and executives. And others like Indians follow.
Well, when thousands die after a pandemic outbreak, we don't say things like what good are doctors, anyway or what good are scientists, anyway! I think, many here are barking up the wrong tree. Economics, as a discipline, and its practitioners, have never claimed that it is an exact science. Every economic/econometric model starts with a number of assumptions, and when human element or even natural phenomena produces reality that is at variance with the assumptions, the predictive power of these models come down. Economists always make predictions with a certain level of probability attached to them. But then, we all love certainties! So, policy makers who make use of the economists' probable predictions communicate a far higher degree of certainty to the general public, than what the original model ever predicted. Economists are so used to making statements like "On the one hand,... and on the other, ..." that Haile Selassie, the former emperor of Ethiopia, while looking for an advisor, was reported to have asked for an economist with only one hand! Over the last seventy years or so, both economics and medical sciences have acquired significantly higher levels of exactness, the latter much more than the former. But, the fact of the matter is that both these sciences are still non-exact sciences, though the degree of exactness vary greatly between them.
The Balanced Scorecard, Sensitivity Analysis, and MBO, form a triad of management techniques that organizations can use to respond to environmental challenges. Macro solutions do not work in fragmented markets. That is why economics loses so much utility if it is bereft of management processes. The recession need not affect all entities in equal measures. Groups and individuals can thrive in the midst of general and widespread stagnation or failures. It is an occasion for professional managers to make meaningful contributions.
The contents of the article and the way of expression he has made indicates the annoyance & dissatisfaction of the writer.More so at many juncture he himself asserts his apprehension as to the Politicalised Economist.Moreover may I invite his attention to the basics of Economis that it depends on Human behaviour functioning between the scarce means and unlimited wants.I invite the writer to my mail ID. if he so desires to waveout his thinking.khagendra.
The job of an econometrician is to predict the economic trend. But his role doesn't including telling you the truth. You don’t need to be an econometrician to see what's coming if you have the data in front of you. Most of the econometricians you see on TV or read on any publication are the paid actors, whose motive is to shield the truth. The predictions of the economists might have gone wrong but they made huge profits, even in this slump.
The problem is that at certain levels, the subject ECONOMICS is just vague. Normally, 2 economists will have 2 different opinions on any thing. But again, it's very dificult to manage without economics. To somewhat same extent, application of statistics doesn't give any meaningful insight in many areas. Unfortunately, I do not know if there's any other alternative.
Monthly salary system is full of demerits - both to the employer and to the employees. In case of employer, it leads to speculative expenditures. For employees, it become tragic when their monthly pay cheques are delayed by another month, or even longer. Thus, they can not pay their bills on time, and take care of family expenses. Perhaps, our economists also share the grief with the citizens who not got their monthly salaries on time, or got their monthly salaries frozen for ever. A weekly salary system is the unanimous choice of every citizen.
