A post at Freakonomics suggests macroeconomics is in more trouble than microeconomics because there is less room for empirical work because there is less data:

In microeconomics, at least there is an abundance of good data, so people who are good at measuring and describing things can succeed. But in macro there is not much data, so most of the rewards are for the mathematics, not the empirics.

As  a micro-theorist and hence an outsider, it seems to me that Hari Seldon and other psychohistorians are wrong: events involving large numbers of people and firms are harder to predict than those involving a few. In micro for example, is much harder to understand imperfect competition than it is to understand say monopoly price discrimination.  Even if competition is perfect, we know from general equilibrium theory that there is still a multiple equilibrium problem that makes it hard to predict economic trends. And if we allow monopolies so we can predict trends more easily, here is my main prediction: prices will go up, output will go down, the stock market will go up and consumers will be worse off.