How much has macro progressed since 1970?

Time Magazine

Via MR, a good question is poised. Blanchard has a nice rant congratulating himself here.

How important is RE/the Lucas Critique in the face of the income effect?

Brad DeLong files Greg Mankiw's scepticism under "utter stupidity", while Eugene Fama takes the line you might expect from a guy who spent his life looking at β.

Of course us micro guys have no such worries. We... we.... eh, well we're still working uncertainty, and stock-pricing is still pretty tricky... but why wouldn't it be when rationality is such a problem for agents to grasp? Sure behavioural economics will sort that out... when it progresses... eventually. I guess we've found out that there may be endogeneity in the Structure Conduct Performance paradigm, but, eh, we've no uniform model of market dynamic to improve it with yet. In fact the only real advance in micro I can think of right now is Whinston (1990) proving that predatory practices can happen and hurt economic welfare. You'da thunk we'd have done that before, huh?

nesf

Compare Economic Growth theory from the 70s with present day stuff just to get the ball rolling.

I think you might want to rephrase the title "How much has the advice given by economic advisors progressed since 1970" or similar since it's not actually Macroeconomics that you're talking about.

Blanchard 'The State of Macro' is a nice, non technical paper that gives a good overview on the developments in Macroeconomics over the last 30 or so years.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14259

Économiste Monétaire

Greg Mankiw wrote a paper to express his view of the evolution of macroeconomics for the last few decades, and how new advances in the academic world have failed to be implemented substantially, yet, from his time as CEA Chairman. It's interesting but, obviously, biased on the new-Keynesian side.

Link.