Cuidado com os macro-economistas

Não acredito em acasos!
.
Já escrevi várias vezes:
.
Não há coincidências, todos os acasos são significativos!
.
Ontem, ao princípio da tarde descobri na net este saboroso artigo "Why Do Firms Differ, And How Does It Matter?"
.
Já por várias vezes neste blogue chamei a atenção para a diferença entre os macro-economistas e a micro-economia e, para a minha perplexidade perante a disparidade entre as receitas e teorias económicas versus a realidade concreta das empresas, uma versão moderna de manipuladores de bosta.
.
Os macro-economistas só sabem usar a variável preço/custo e falam de uma realidade que eu não vejo. Eu visito as PMEs e vejo outra realidade muito mais optimista. Por isso, ao encontrar o artigo de Richard R. Nelson, com cerca de 20 anos mas tão actual, não pude deixar de sorrir perante estes trechos:
.
"I would argue that the most important difference is that economists tend to see firms as players in a multi actor economic game, and their interest is in the game and its outcomes, rather than in the particular play or performance of individual firms. … This perspective is quite different, it seems to me, than that of a student of management who is concerned with the behavior and performance of individual firms in their own right. My objective in this essay is to make a strong case for the economic significance, in the sense above, of discretionary firm differences. My position certainly has been influenced by the work of scholars of firm management who have persuasively documented significant differences among, firms in an industry in behavior and perform-lance, and proposed that these differences largely reflect different choices made by firms. However, because the interests of those authors have differed from the interests of economists, almost no attention has been paid to the industry or economy wide implications of such different choices.
…
The tendency to ignore discretionary firm differences in part reflects that economists are not interested in behavior and performance at the level of firms, but rather in broader aggregates-industry or economy wide performance. It reflects, as well, some strong theoretical views held by most main line economists about what economic activity is all about, and about the role and nature of firms in economic activity. My argument that discretionary firm differences within an industry exist and do matter significantly is part and parcel of my broader argument that neoclassical economic theory is badly limited."
.
Ontem à noite, via @EskoKilpi, cheguei a este artigo da revista The Economist "Why Do Firms Exist?" onde encontrei estes trechos:
.
"The young Mr Coase first grew interested in the workings of firms when he travelled around America’s industrial heartland on a scholarship in 1931-32. He abandoned his textbooks and asked businessmen why they did what they did. He has long chided his fellow economists for scrawling hieroglyphics on blackboards rather than looking at what it actually takes to run a business. So it seems reasonable to test his ideas by the same empirical standards.
...
But it also vindicates the twin decisions that Mr Coase made all those years ago as a young student at the London School of Economics: to look inside the black box rather than simply ignoring it, and to examine businesses, not just fiddle with theories."