It's a social science. It's not as rigorous and reliable as hard sciences like physics, chemistry, etc., but it still seeks to use evidence (primarily through statistical analysis) to try to measure the behavior of economies. It's probably the most "scientific" of the social sciences, with Political Science taking second place. The rest are complete jokes, though.>>12607188>Also isn't macroeconomics unironically completely bullshit?
There's a lot of wizardry, but that's because economies tend to rely on aspects that are very hard to observe in a unified sense, including optimism and technological growth.
And also because its modeling is based on the financial system, which has been critiqued since the 1800s. The founder of Macroeconomics, Keynes, even spoke about how bad our financial systems make things.