In this essay, I argue that neither non-economist bloggers, nor economists who portray economics —especially macroeconomic policy— as a simple enterprise with clear conclusions, are likely to contibute any insight to discussion of economics and, as a result, should be ignored by an open-minded lay public. [emphasis added]I don't know why you persist in trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
That's your characterization, but it's w/o merit.
"In this essay, I argue that neither non-economist bloggers, nor economists who portray economics —especially macroeconomic policy— as a simple enterprise with clear conclusions, are likely to contibute any insight to discussion of economics and, as a result, should be ignored by an open-minded lay public. [emphasis added]"
Mr. Athreya lists 3 groups of folks that he would like everyone to ignore. You left out the non-economist, which is the most numerous class of person Athreya desires to stiffe. The other group contains those that are economists, so the word simple as used here does not mean their knowledge is limited in scope. It's definitive conclusion and the fact that the KISS principle applies everywhere in real economies, that he objects to.
Regardless of Athreya's implied claim, that economics is a complex, chaotic dynamical system that can not be understood to provide clear conclusions and predictions, it is and can be. That's because fundamentally all real systems are logical and just as the 3 body problem always provides clear, consise predictive outcomes, so too econ.
"fail.
Yeah, cute phrase, but empty. In God's vested and internally consistent models we trust, all others must provide evidence that their claims are logical and are completely consistent with reality.