Because the US economy is held up by a specific form of financial magic - world reserve currency.
Kinda blows my mind that the US is on a strongly antagonistic & isolationist streak in that context. Seems like a great way to turn the US economy (and prosperity) into a smoking crater
N_Lens · 40m ago
Economics seems more like a religion than science, with how much fundamental belief and perceptions seem to influence outcomes.
chneu · 4m ago
Economics is kinda like weather prediction. Most people don't understand what economists are saying and they react based on what they think economists are saying. The same is true for things like rain predictions in that people don't understand what the prediction is, so when it doesn't rain people think "the weatherman is never right" when that isn't what the prediction was saying in the first place.
That said, economics is a mostly bunk "science".
elif · 12m ago
Correct. Success in modern market economics is 90% about determining the future sentiment of economists.
rapsey · 1m ago
That is not true. Markets are moved by traders not economists. Professional traders have a very skeptical view of economists, because economists are simply wrong so often about the future. Economists from the world bank and such institutions are usually on the wrong side of forecasting for instance.
For instance Scott Bessent opinion:
"I will take the market-based indicators over the so-called 'experts' all the time! That’s how I made my 35-year career, was listening to the market."
stop50 · 11m ago
That is why there is no nobelprize for economics. Only an Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
_heimdall · 27m ago
I've taken issue with economics being considered a science since my first econ class in high school.
It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the past, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
braiamp · 7m ago
> it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.
squid_ca · 20m ago
Edit:replied to wrong post
braiamp · 19m ago
And we have very rigorous models that confirm that that is true. Perception shapes the economy more than actual fundamentals, specially when predicting the future.
squid_ca · 19m ago
Economics isn’t a science, it’s a social science
terminalshort · 19m ago
Macroecon, yes. Micro is actually very useful and has a good amount of predictive power.
rrsp · 17m ago
Could you recommend any good resources for learning more about microeconomics?
logicchains · 5m ago
Economic models that have strong empirically demonstrated predictive power are called finance, not economics, because any economic predictive model that actually works can be used to make money.
HPsquared · 34m ago
There are certainly a lot of apologetics.
bell-cot · 21m ago
Yeah - but mainstream economics is far more a state religion than it is just-a-religion. The priesthood is superficially concerned with the welfare of the masses, theological consistency, etc. - but the actual priority is divining what words, doctrines, and predictions would best serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and regularly pronouncing those. And vehemently denouncing any heretics who get too interested in the actual welfare of the masses, or the track record of the priesthood's predictions, or other dirty truths.
So long as you have the right mindset, being a priest of a generously supported state religion is a very cushy job.
braiamp · 13m ago
Yeah man, we are only to serve the rich, not because we are trying to solve the problem of scarcity nor we toot about the welfare state. Stop listening to popular economists, read about the science. We've figured this out, the problem is political.
OneFriend2575 · 48m ago
Kinda wild that the model just gave up when it hit current debt levels. Not because the math was off but because it assumes we’ll “fix things later” by default. That’s not a forecast, it’s blind hope baked into the system.
Feels like we’ve passed the point where debt is just a background worry. If the models can’t even handle where we’re at now, maybe the risks are way closer than we’d like to think.
joules77 · 9m ago
Well don't dismiss blind hope :)
Want to screw with an Economist, ask them for a model that can keep the Vatican afloat for a thousand years through empires/nations/currencies collapsing.
rvba · 45m ago
If the model cannot handle when we are now, then it is a vad model.
Same for a model crashing.
Different thing is if it showed that repayment is inpossible.
The article mentions a ery important subject, but quality is low.
It is interesting that the complaint is that the model would not converge. Convergence might be a nice property to have or desire, but simple systems don't necessarily converge. For instance ecosystems are chaotic.
jcfrei · 17m ago
The US will likely go down the same path every other country has gone before with an unpayable debt burden: Just inflate it away. Which is bad for people with fixed-income investments in the US and across the globe, ie. mostly pensioners and people with lots of bonds in their retirement funds. And also likely bad for people with jobs who will face yet another cost of living crisis. If your money is in real estate, equities or gold you should be fine though.
Retric · 8m ago
US’s effective debt burden, debt * (interest rate - inflation)/GDP, isn’t particularly high right now. Unfortunately some politicians seem to have decided unlimited increases in debt isn’t a problem. There’s no way to solve that as long as people are happy to elect them.
rubslopes · 19m ago
It's not really clickbait per se, but to non-economists, saying "they made a model of the U.S. economy" may sound like they did a novel thing. Bear in mind that creating models of the economy is basically what macroeconomists do all the time.
andrewstuart · 1m ago
The implication is that the bugs in their code are the same as bugs in the economy which is false.
christophilus · 21m ago
I think we should change the title to: economists need to improve their Fortran skills.
HPsquared · 51m ago
Whenever I read about macroeconomics I remember the Phillips machine, the MONIAC (MOnetary National Income Analogue Computer):
I feel it's kind of become a cliche trend now driven by the likes of Naval et al to shit on macroeconomics. While I never took the models I studied or created to be scientific, I always found them useful to frame the economic world we lived in. Even if those assumptions rarely predicted outcome or achieved repeatability.
I'm lazy, so ... over to the LLM:
This Hacker News thread expresses deep skepticism about macroeconomics, portraying it as unpredictable, overly influenced by perception, and possibly aligned with elite interests. While these critiques aren’t baseless—macroeconomic models often struggle with forecasting and can embed optimistic assumptions—they miss the broader point: macroeconomics remains essential and useful, especially when viewed as a tool rather than a crystal ball.
Arguing for the Usefulness of Economics (especially Macroeconomics):
It provides a framework to understand complex systems
Macroeconomics helps us make sense of national and global phenomena—like inflation, unemployment, growth, and inequality. It gives policymakers and the public a structured way to evaluate cause and effect. Without it, decisions would be made blindly or based purely on ideology.
Policy decisions are informed by macroeconomic tools:
Central banks use economic models to set interest rates. Governments use them to forecast tax revenue, structure stimulus packages, and plan budgets. While models aren’t perfect, they are better than flying without instruments—especially in crises like the 2008 financial crash or the 2020 pandemic.
Imperfect models still guide effective responses
Critics rightly point out that models don’t always converge or predict turning points. But the weather forecast analogy applies: we don’t expect perfect predictions, yet forecasts still help us prepare. Similarly, macroeconomic insights helped avoid depression in 2008–09, guide inflation control today, and shape climate and industrial policy.
Economics evolves and improves:
Like any social science, macroeconomics adapts. New models increasingly incorporate behavioral insights, inequality, financial instability, and even ecological limits—areas previously overlooked. The discipline is far from static, and many economists are leading critics of outdated assumptions.
Bottom Line:
Yes, macroeconomics has limits—especially when models are treated as gospel rather than guidance. But dismissing it entirely because of its imperfections is like discarding medicine because not every patient gets better. Used critically and responsibly, macroeconomics helps societies navigate complexity, make informed choices, and anticipate risks—even when the future remains uncertain.
Kinda blows my mind that the US is on a strongly antagonistic & isolationist streak in that context. Seems like a great way to turn the US economy (and prosperity) into a smoking crater
That said, economics is a mostly bunk "science".
For instance Scott Bessent opinion:
"I will take the market-based indicators over the so-called 'experts' all the time! That’s how I made my 35-year career, was listening to the market."
It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the past, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes.
Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.
So long as you have the right mindset, being a priest of a generously supported state religion is a very cushy job.
Feels like we’ve passed the point where debt is just a background worry. If the models can’t even handle where we’re at now, maybe the risks are way closer than we’d like to think.
Want to screw with an Economist, ask them for a model that can keep the Vatican afloat for a thousand years through empires/nations/currencies collapsing.
Same for a model crashing.
Different thing is if it showed that repayment is inpossible.
The article mentions a ery important subject, but quality is low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
It is interesting that the complaint is that the model would not converge. Convergence might be a nice property to have or desire, but simple systems don't necessarily converge. For instance ecosystems are chaotic.
https://youtu.be/beuseJ0Wm3M
I'm lazy, so ... over to the LLM:
This Hacker News thread expresses deep skepticism about macroeconomics, portraying it as unpredictable, overly influenced by perception, and possibly aligned with elite interests. While these critiques aren’t baseless—macroeconomic models often struggle with forecasting and can embed optimistic assumptions—they miss the broader point: macroeconomics remains essential and useful, especially when viewed as a tool rather than a crystal ball.
Arguing for the Usefulness of Economics (especially Macroeconomics):
It provides a framework to understand complex systems Macroeconomics helps us make sense of national and global phenomena—like inflation, unemployment, growth, and inequality. It gives policymakers and the public a structured way to evaluate cause and effect. Without it, decisions would be made blindly or based purely on ideology.
Policy decisions are informed by macroeconomic tools:
Central banks use economic models to set interest rates. Governments use them to forecast tax revenue, structure stimulus packages, and plan budgets. While models aren’t perfect, they are better than flying without instruments—especially in crises like the 2008 financial crash or the 2020 pandemic.
Imperfect models still guide effective responses
Critics rightly point out that models don’t always converge or predict turning points. But the weather forecast analogy applies: we don’t expect perfect predictions, yet forecasts still help us prepare. Similarly, macroeconomic insights helped avoid depression in 2008–09, guide inflation control today, and shape climate and industrial policy.
Economics evolves and improves:
Like any social science, macroeconomics adapts. New models increasingly incorporate behavioral insights, inequality, financial instability, and even ecological limits—areas previously overlooked. The discipline is far from static, and many economists are leading critics of outdated assumptions.
Bottom Line: Yes, macroeconomics has limits—especially when models are treated as gospel rather than guidance. But dismissing it entirely because of its imperfections is like discarding medicine because not every patient gets better. Used critically and responsibly, macroeconomics helps societies navigate complexity, make informed choices, and anticipate risks—even when the future remains uncertain.