Read the article from the Economist.  A lot of seemed like common sense or general knowledge, for instance the bit about economist having caveats about the free market being efficient. Despite being fairly certain I read it before its hard to tell if this feeling is shaped by the fact that around two years have passed since “recession” started and we’ve re-internalized alot of the truism or if it was a little simplistic when it was first published.

What I liked: “Economics is less a slavish creed than a prism through which to understand the world.”

What I didn’t like and probably didn’t understand: “Economists need to reach out from their specialised silos: macroeconomists must understand finance, and finance professors need to think harder about the context within which markets work.” It has never really occurred to me to consider these two fields as distinct entities. Or rather finance professors are the ones that deal with boring, pedestrian questions like how to get enough money where as macro-economist are the ones that get to look at everything including the finance professors purview.  The idea that an econ professor wouldn’t or shouldn’t have to know about financial markets seems laughable to me which is I guess part of the point the article is making, I’m just not sure if that point is legitimately banal or if the passage of time just makes it seem so.