Kling on Macro
See here .
Here's his summation at the end and it's really, really good:
We badly want macroeconometrics to work. If it did, we could resolve bitter theoretical disputes with evidence. We could achieve better forecasting and control of the economy. Unfortunately, the world is not set up to enable macroeconometrics to work. Instead, all macroeconometric models are basically simulation models that use data for calibration purposes. People judge these models based on their priors for how the economy works. Imposing priors related to rational expectations does not change the fact that macroeconometrics provides no empirical information to anyone except those who happen to share all of the priors of the model-builder.
I used to read Kling sparingly. Over the last year, I've read him more and more. He's quite impressive and a great source of information during this crisis. He worked for a GSE and knows macro inside out, upside down and backward and forward. That makes his critiques all the more worth reading. That's not to say that other libertarian economists don't of a PhD level grasp of Macro. They do. But Kling just seems to communicate his points on a level I've never seen in others.
I think that summary above really sheds a lot of light on a lot of the confusion and talking past one another on the matter of economics being a science and a tool for prediction. Kling has this all down pat as well as is at all possible.
He strikes me as unique in today's economic debates in that he shows a high level of mastery of intricacies of both sides of the argument.
The complementary gem would be a liberal Keynesian economist with equal expertise and knowledge of opposing arguments.