by Peter Radford takes down the "economic science profession."As an academic, I approach the issue somewhat differently. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about specialization and methodological choices. The problem arises begins with naming and extends to capture of an epistemological territory. Conventional "economics" has managed to capture an academic field based not on more successful explanation but rather as a result of acquiring the power to sideline competitors, some of whom have been more successful in explanation. This is done by enforcing particular methodological rules on the specious justification that they have proven "superior" and "that the debate is now over.""Let a hundred flowers bloom." If mathematicians want to pursue the study of economic modeling, why not? But to
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Elon Musk (& Vivek Ramaswamy) on hardship, because he knows so much about it
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Klas Eklunds ‘Vår ekonomi’ — lärobok med stora brister
New Economics Foundation writes We need more than a tax on the super rich to deliver climate and economic justice
Robert Vienneau writes Profits Not Explained By Merit, Increased Risk, Increased Ability To Compete, Etc.
Peter Radford takes down the "economic science profession."
As an academic, I approach the issue somewhat differently. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about specialization and methodological choices. The problem arises begins with naming and extends to capture of an epistemological territory.
Conventional "economics" has managed to capture an academic field based not on more successful explanation but rather as a result of acquiring the power to sideline competitors, some of whom have been more successful in explanation. This is done by enforcing particular methodological rules on the specious justification that they have proven "superior" and "that the debate is now over."
"Let a hundred flowers bloom." If mathematicians want to pursue the study of economic modeling, why not? But to regard that approach as justifiably exclusive and to manage to impose it through power relationships is madness from the intellectual point of view. Of course, it is highly rewarding from the stance of economics, since it leaves all the choice positions in academic and related fields involving economic advice in the hands of those wielding the power as a group.
It is well-known how at the time of the financial crisis the then reigning queen asked her majesty's economists how they had all missed its onset. But nothing has changed.
The Radford Free PressThe Price of Economics
Peter Radford