I confess that I am a bad economics student, I am especially bad at macroeconomics. Maybe I do not have talent in macroeconomics, I find myself having troubles to understand and develop macroeconomic models. I like to compare economics with science, and many economists like to do so as well. For me, microeconomics is like learning how a subject is dropping in a room in Physics, this question is simple to solve, and of course, good physicians will study it into more details such as how air particles in the room react to this subject, which is more complicated and seems doable. However, macroeconomics for me is like trying to predict the movement of every single particle in a room with open doors and windows, this is merely impossible that we do not know any information about the wind from outside. Macroeconomic theories with microeconomics foundations are like studying one particle's movement in the room and apply it to all particles. This sounds sensible, but we know that when we put things together, they will act differently from when they act separately and independently. Moreover, when putting some particles together, some chemistry reaction may happen between them and this will make the entire system much more complicated. Macroeconomics is just like this that individuals behave differently when they are grouping together and some of them may have chemistry between them and generate influential impacts on the system though they are the minority in the system.
To conclude, my trouble with macroeconomics is that I find macroeconomics is studying a field that is way too large, complicated and unstable to be modelled. All macroeconomic theories have many assumptions behind them and some of the assumptions really make me question if the theories are practical in the reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment