> In other words economics (including "Marxist" economics) is not and
> cannot be a science, of _any_ kind. (Marx's Critique needs to be seen in
> terms of the use of the German word for "science" in the mid-19th-c.)
> The better economists more or less recognize that they are not engaged
> in a scientific but a historical project. You can recognize them by
> their reluctance to make _any_ kind of forecast except highly abstractr
> ones in the form of if...then.
>
I'll make a prediction right now. GDP growth in the second half of 2010 will be less than in the first half. Inventory accumulation and net government spending will be, statistically, contributing factors. Sorry, Carrol.
SA