(I could not resist the marketing flavor of it).

I have invited three up to now. For the two of them I pointed to a specific question that I Knew it was in their area of interest and knowledge. One of them signed up and offered an answer.

I am posting this because my (unverified) impression is that the user-mix is not yet balanced. We have much more (active) users with low or medium Economics literacy but truly interested in understanding and using the Economics way of thinking and analysis (and I honestly thank them for their interest and for their presence and the time and energy they devote here), but not that many experts.

The majority of the questions are either too broad or too foundational. Some of them may still be answered in a useful way and in accordance with the spirit of an .SE site, but in any case, we are short of questions that are more targeted, either theoretically, or empirically. I understand that the "automatic" characterization of such questions would be "more technical" -but I object to that, if only because "technical" in many corners silently means "uninterestingly narrow". Really?

Then think (or learn) about the Reinhart-Roggof Controversy, and how the "devil that was hiding in the details" had such a large impact. To me Economics is a very fascinating philosophical way to approach and interpret the world, but it is also a scientific discipline dealing with and affecting human livelihoods, if not lives, -and you can never become too technical, when the stakes are so high. So, please,

enter image description here

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I personally was delaying it until the beta is public. I have some friends who do similar stuff as I do, but the answers I got in my part where somewhat lacking. Not that they were bad, but it was just so few. So, I'd rather invite them later when the responsiveness to questions in our area is bigger. But if you're willing to coordinate out of this equilibrium, maybe,... $\endgroup$
    – FooBar
    Nov 27, 2014 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @FooBar Yes, let's try to coordinate this. It is better to move into Chat, I have created a relevant discussion room there. $\endgroup$ Nov 27, 2014 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ "...you can never become too technical..." I approve this statement. In fact, even when the stakes are low, being technical removes ambiguity, and reduces confusion. Which is nice, I think. $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Nov 30, 2014 at 18:53

1 Answer 1


I invited another well know economist. Happy to say they signed up.

  • $\begingroup$ Somebody downvoted this ... ? $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Dec 1, 2014 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .