Atwood's reasoning is "meta tags do not describe the content -so they should be discouraged". He was talking about the meta-tags "subjective", "beginner", "best practices". All useless, I agree with him. But: too little data, too small a sample, to generalize over the whole SE network, sorry, unacceptable, especially as the SE network has evolved from 2010 when that post was written.
And indeed, FooBar's approach is about meta-tags that will tell much about the content. I mean, under the tags "inflation", "unemployment", "macroeconomics", "monetary policy", we can see questions like
"Why economists care so much about inflation, and resist printing
money in order to reduce unemployment? Isn't the creation of jobs more important
According to paper XXX, the duration of the effects of an
unanticipated increase in money supply, depend critically on the
degree to which the labor market is bilateraly regulated by contracts.
The author presents data from three different countries where the
effect lasted no less than the average wage contract duration in the
economy, and in some cases, a bit more. In an attempt to rationalize
this finding, as well as the fact that long-term contracts do exist,
and extensively so, he builds a model where workers do not suffer from
money illusion but value a constant nominal income because the
internal costs of re-organizing consumption under a fixed nominal
budget are lower than the bargaining and uncertainty costs from
bargaining constantly with employers over wages (don't forget,
bargaining may lead to lower wages also, even if this may come about
through bargaining failure, search for work, unemployment spell, find work with lower pay). And
the difference can more than offset the fact that the first situation
leaves the workers exposed to surprises from the government, that may
lower their real income. Now what I don't understand in his model is
Personally I would really want to have a way to filter such questions apart. Mind you, I am interested in both -but the mindset for each one is totally different.
1) I believe that the tag applied-economics considered by EnergyNumbers is useful. Granted, it may be a bit broad, but in partitioning separation with "applied econometrics" it will effectively include all "questions of the interested public" that deal with a specific economic phenomenon. These are the one big chunk of "layman" questions here (the other one is the "philosophical" strand and the various "what if" scenarios, but let's not rush here, and first see how these last sub-categories evolve in numbers).
2) I am in favor of creating a tag for the "academic/graduate" strand of questions. They are a world on their own -and let's not lose our heads over the name of the tag, let's call it exactly that : academic-graduate. No one will be confused.