Molson Hart

In economics? Pretty much every worthwhile economics paper is empirical research. Here's 2 I remember: water access improves health outcomes and Walmart entering a grocery market lowers average grocery prices amongst all supermarkets in the area by almost 10%... 2 enough?

I agree with you about the empirical research but I think that, more often than not, the research is totally flawed. How many of these empirical papers are both correct and tell you something that your grandmother couldn't?

Did we need a Ph.D. to tell us that if you drink fecal matter, your health will be worse? How about that competition lowers prices? Get the Nobels ready!

That's reductionist. Economics is not about absolutes, it's about "what is the value?" How valuable is clean drinking water? Is it more valuable than having a doctor nearby? Maybe we should invest our scarce development resources in wells instead of clinics then.

Unfortunately academic economics has not, does not, and likely will not answer those questions. When real life and the economics paper agree, it's like a blind squirrel finding a nut or a broken clock being right twice a day.

You'd have to show me more than anecdotal evidence that the majority of peer reviewed economic studies are false. I'm sorry your economics major left you so disillusioned in the field. Maybe you chose the wrong tracks. I chose developmental and public.

A single anecdote can falsify an entire paper. Asking me to cite an empirical study to prove my point that empirical studies of economics seems a bit circular no? When I took economics, I felt it was easier than math and it seemed a bit naive or unrealistic, especially macro.

It's not until you venture out in the real world that you realize that it's mostly a big waste of time. When it's right, it's grossly inefficient.