The article was an interesting read, but with so much jargon and opinion I remain skeptical about its points. The opinion shown in the article was glaring because the author was taking sides on almost everything. A lot what the author stated was pretty much common sense, but common sense is often very misleading. One thing I want to point out as a difference between physicists and macroeconomists is that the physicist are able to make predictions about a physical phenomenon and are actually correct about it, while so many macroeconomists are wrong. Almost nobody predicted the current fall in oil prices, so why should a “layperson” trust someone who is wrong much less often than a physicist? Someone can argue that the empirics cause some of the disparity, but even if that was true it does not five someone the right to bash the general population for not understanding macroeconomics the same way they do. Just because someone uses jargon that few understand does not mean someone is right, because opinion is just opinion. There are so many “experts” out there that think they know what they’re talking about, but if those experts know so much how come very of their macroeconomic predictions actually come true? Chances are I could toss a coin and it would have the predictive nature of oil prices as so many of those experts. To me, macroeconomics is one of the most complex fields there is because there are infinitely many factors to consider because it aims to describe human behavior in a macro scale, and that is almost an impossible feat. In physics there are many factors, but in macroeconomics those factors from physics are also factors in macroeconomics. The reason I say that is because those factors in s affect the experimental or theoretical outcome, which does have explicit or implicit economic consequences even if we don’t see them. One such example would be the discovery of the conservation of energy and mass, which had tremendous engineering, scientific, and economic consequences. Scientific thought allows for a better predictive nature for phenomenon, but that very predictive nature hinges on economics and vice versa because of interrelationships. If only the blog I read was more scientific in nature and less opinion because I doubt opinions are more than just opinions.