I went to school for economics. When I asked any practical question about the economy my professors would talk about the problem for a bit. They would almost always do the "on one hand this on the other hand that" economist thing. Then they would usually tell me I should go ask some other professor who specialized in the pertinent subject if I wanted to know more. If I then went to the specialist they would usually end up doing the two handed economist thing again and conclude that they strongly suspected things went one way or the other but that the whole question would be well served with more data and study if we wanted to understand it better. Even professors who held strong opinions would often admit that they might be wrong and that different economic conditions could render their position on correct policy untrue. Hearing politicians say anything about economics usually sickens me. They talk with such certainty. Ask an honest labor economist the ramifications of rasing the minimum wage you'll walk away realizing shit is tricky. Any one who says otherwise is full of shit. Looking back I can only think of one professor who didn't preface most conversations with a phrase like ”the data suggests that..." and he was a bit of a crazy old dude.
He picked a poor analogy with medicine. Psychology would have been a much better comparison, or even neuroscience. In these disciplines there are things that we can talk about with a great deal of confidence, but some of the most important questions are difficult to even frame. How do you feel about your education in economics? Worth the while? I think another reason why people love to talk about it, is because it is so fascinating. It's like social math weather.
I think it's a valuable thing to study. I think taking just micro and macro is generally bad for people. A little bit of economics gives people a simple framework upon which to hang their bias and a whole lot more unmerited confidence in that bias. If you go a little deeper you can't avoid the fact that almost any policy position will have winners and losers. Most people can only see the benefits of the policy choice that leans toward their bias and refuse to acknowledge that it could have any downside. I helps you really understand opportunity costs. Cost Benefit Analysis was one of the best classes I took. People bag on it as a discipline soooo fucking hard and it's often used for evil but if it's done rigorously and ethically it really can lead to better outcomes. The psychology of economic decisions is pretty interesting. Peoples fear of loosing something being so much more powerful than their desire to gain something. The way hot button issues distort our valuation of policy choices. Stuff like spending on health vs spending on terrorism. Game theory makes you look at the world a bit differently. If you study the history of economics and still believe that this is the best system that could ever be you're an idiot. I have to imagine that it enriches my understanding of the world more than any hard science would have. Biology and Physics may be interesting but I don't know that undergraduate study in either would brush up against the world as consistently as economics. Maybe philosophy or literature could be enlightening on the same level but I rarely found academic analysis of books anything but tiresome and philosophy generally pissed me off. Here is the kind of thing that an extremely rigorous professor concluded a semester of study about international trade with "We can say, with a high degree of confidence, that international trade increases GDP by at least 1/2 of a percent". She was a true believer in the value of free trade and markets, Had some reservations about FDI that were way above my head. That's a semester of theory about why trade was good and when it came down to econometric truth she could confidently tease out a measly half a percent if she was only going to accept the most rigorous and ethical analysis. I found the rigor impressive even if the power of economics to foretell the future or confidently tell us anything useful about our world a little bit less than what the general public thinks it can do.He picked a poor analogy with medicine. Psychology would have been a much better comparison, or even neuroscience. In these disciplines there are things that we can talk about with a great deal of confidence
One of my favorite statistics professors decorated his office in fortune telling memorabilia. He said it was to remind people he consulted with not to trust him too much.I found the rigor impressive even if the power of economics to foretell the future or confidently tell us anything useful about our world a little bit less than what the general public thinks it can do.
To test many hypotheses, sure. However, when it comes to matters of consciousness and intelligence in neuroscience, things can get sloppy and there is disagreement about what even constitutes a meaningful question, much less what is measurable. The same goes for psychology. I'm not saying that there are perfect analogies, but are far better than making one to medicine. But even then, It would be fabulous to hear an amateur discussion about bioprosthetic valves at a dinner party. The very premise of Glover's argument is insulting. As you mentioned, a liquidity trap is not particularly opaque idea, and the worst thing that can happen is that a few people debate over the definition of a 'liquidity trap' and walk away better for it.