An interesting read for econ-oriented individuals. The read is summarized here: Ricardo Caballero on Hayek & the way forward for macroeconomics.
It deals with the conflict within economics between what we know and what we pretend to know. In describing the lure of macroeconomics (the Keynesian version), he describes it thusly:
The dynamic stochastic general equilibrium strategy is so attractive, and even plain addictive, because it allows one to generate impulse responses that can be fully described in terms of seemingly scientific statements. The model is an irresistible snake-charmer. In contrast, the periphery is not nearly as ambitious, and it provides mostly qualitative insights. So we are left with the tension between a type of answer to which we aspire but that has limited connection with reality (the core) and more sensible but incomplete answers (the periphery).
Greg Ransom, who provided the information on the above, also deals with the crisis in macroeconomics in a separate article entitled The damaged reputation of macroeconomics where he states:
Even MIT economists are admitting the obvious. (pdf) Chances the profession will heal itself? I don’t see it as long as the cash and the work keeps rolling in from the Federal Reserve, the NSF, the Federal bureaucracy, and from government supported students — and as long as the elite in the profession continue to control who gets to publish in the profession’s guild-run publications and who gets tenure at the top 10 or 15 graduate schools.
Although not overly technical, both full articles are probably only for econophiles.
