Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Agreed. The two points are not mutually exclusive.
The problem is that history can be viewed through many lenses and that all historical events occur in multivariable settings. Study of why things happen tends to be limited by forces like those described in chaos theory.
People who look too deeply at history as a predictor tend to make the mistakes of believing whatever worked was the only thing that would work or whatever failed would always fail.
On the other hand, historical data is necessary for any kind of scientific or semi-scientific analysis.


Right. And that explains why there are also strong disagreements within liberal and conservative camps...
I don't consider socialism so much an economic theory as most of its bases are in differing values rather than economic analysis... They'll admit to problems with the growth of economies under socialism but determine it worth it for social benefit... It's incompatible as they are arguing something else.

But you still have varying degrees of the neo-classical and neo-Keynesian outlooks (which are really part of the same overall philosophy), as well as the wacky far-right Austrian stuff.
For the most part everyone in the field, liberal or conservative, is part of "neo-classical fusion."
It doesn't seem to lead to an end to the arguments on policy.
And it still hasn't made things any more or less predictable.