Sure, people being certain about what's going to happen and when is akin to snake oil, but using good insight and tools to try and control how people are affected by something like a pandemic seems to me to be the role that economists need to play.
Sure, people being certain about what's going to happen and when is akin to snake oil, but using good insight and tools to try and control how people are affected by something like a pandemic seems to me to be the role that economists need to play.
Unfortunately, there are way too many variables, interactions, etc, etc to have any real confidence in those measures. It's further complicated by the idea that the normal tools (primarily interest rate & money supply delivered via subsidies, etc) are beyond their "normal" operating ranges.
When the Fed rate was 5% and loans were 8%, lowering rates encouraged borrowing. When the Fed rate is 0.25% and loans are 3-5%, qualified people can get all the money they want.. now what? Do they give money to people who can't pay it back (mortgage crash) or spend it on "shovel ready projects" which take 12-18 months to get started?
Alternatively, when consumer spending makes up 70%+ of the economy, consumer confidence is probably the single most important metric.
This is less engineering and more psychology at scale.
Thats not Keynesian economics at all! Or rather it's a view that people from schools of thought completely opposite to Keynesian also believe.
Does anyone not think this? Eg, Quantitative Easing: does anyone (Keynesian or not) think it does nothing?
Or to put it another way: it's the three-body problem extended to millions->billions of bodies which use psychology+perception as the main force instead of gravity.