Shortened from Quackroeconomics, although I still could revert back.
It didn’t necessarily get the most votes in the comments, but it’s the one I can put the most personal oomph into. In fact, I conceive of one of the early chapters as quasi-autobiographical. I will attempt to bring the reader along as my own views on macroeconomics evolve. That might be a risky approach, but we’ll see…
FWIW, I prefer “Quackroeconomics” if only to help distinguish from “Freakonomics”
Fun quotes from Carlyle:
We are governed, very infallibly, by the ‘sham-hero,’–whose name is Quack, whose work and governance is Plausibility, and also is Falsity and Fatuity; to which Nature says, and must say when it comes to _her_ to speak, eternally No! … And Quack and Dupe, as we must ever keep in mind, are upper-side and under of the selfsame substance; convertible personages: turn up your dupe into the proper fostering element, and he himself can become a quack; there is in him the due prurient insincerity, open voracity for profit, and closed sense for truth, whereof quacks too, in all their kinds, are made.
I very much look forward to reading it, and am glad you are doing an autobiographical section. I think a historical section would also be valuable.
A juicy quotation for you: In 2008 Nobel laureate Edward Prescott claimed in this questionnaire “Macroeconomcs is now a hard science.” Citation is here,
http://econjwatch.org/articles/desperately-seeking-smithians-responses-to-the-questionnaire-about-building-an-identity?ref=date-archive
You might ping him to see if he has recanted.
I love the title Quackonomics. The closer to Freakonomics, the better. That book did sell a zillion copies, after all.
Especially, I am eager to read an autobiography of your economics views, although I may be a special case and that may not go over so well with people who don’t read this blog.
Excited to read it! Here’s hoping anti-textbooks are priced way less and sell way more than textbooks.
I’d vote for “Quackroeconomics,” despite it being kind of a tongue-twister, because it more clearly references your target: macroeconomics. With just “Quackonomics,” I expect it to be a book about all kinds of bad econ, regardless of field. You might also leave out the ‘k’ to get “Quacroeconomics.”