Summary:
Nicola Headlam is, I think, right with respect to “how the rules of the economy are set”: “Somehow, someone, somewhere made these rules up. They aren’t laws of nature.” And they determine “who’s got what and where and why”. The question is, how do we teach economics so that that message gets through? What to do? Start calling BS for starters. This is yet another example of economics as philosophy, which is rationally based, rather being than science, which is empirically based. This is a foundational mistake that biases the entire structure. As soon as one encounters the term "natural, that's a tell to check the empirical warrant. And, for the most part, that means pushing students through the chapters of a traditional textbook of economics, and therefore teaching them a narrow
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: economics and philosophy, economics and science
This could be interesting, too:
Nicola Headlam is, I think, right with respect to “how the rules of the economy are set”: “Somehow, someone, somewhere made these rules up. They aren’t laws of nature.” And they determine “who’s got what and where and why”. The question is, how do we teach economics so that that message gets through? What to do? Start calling BS for starters. This is yet another example of economics as philosophy, which is rationally based, rather being than science, which is empirically based. This is a foundational mistake that biases the entire structure. As soon as one encounters the term "natural, that's a tell to check the empirical warrant. And, for the most part, that means pushing students through the chapters of a traditional textbook of economics, and therefore teaching them a narrow
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: economics and philosophy, economics and science
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes On James Buchanan (yeah that one!), European Greatness and the fate of Good Ideas — Eric Schliesser
Mike Norman writes Robert Heilbroner — The Embarrassment of Economics: Weekend Reading
Mike Norman writes Peter Radford — Those Lumps Matter
Mike Norman writes Lars P. Syll — Econophysics
Nicola Headlam is, I think, right with respect to “how the rules of the economy are set”:“Somehow, someone, somewhere made these rules up. They aren’t laws of nature.” And they determine “who’s got what and where and why”.The question is, how do we teach economics so that that message gets through?
What to do? Start calling BS for starters.
This is yet another example of economics as philosophy, which is rationally based, rather being than science, which is empirically based. This is a foundational mistake that biases the entire structure. As soon as one encounters the term "natural, that's a tell to check the empirical warrant.
And, for the most part, that means pushing students through the chapters of a traditional textbook of economics, and therefore teaching them a narrow version of economics, consisting almost entirely of neoclassical and Keynesian theories, approaches, and policies.
That way of teaching economics has the effect of naturalizing a capitalist economy. First, it reduces the universe of relevant economic thought to contemporary mainstream economics. No other economic theories, now or in the past, need apply. (Nor, for that matter, should knowledges about the economy beyond mainstream economics, from either disciplines or from outside the academy.) Second, the methods and models are taught in a “common sense” manner. As I discussed back in May, markets have a magical, quasi-mystical status within mainstream economics. They are the original starting-point of neoclassical theory—presented as being “just there,” with the requisite price and quantity axes and supply and demand schedules, as the origin and focus of economic analysis. As for macroeconomics, which I discussed this past April, the premise and promise of both Keynesian and neoclassical macroeconomics is that, with the appropriate institutions and policies, capitalism can be characterized by and should be celebrated for achieving full employment and price stability. In both cases, at the micro and macro levels, the rules governing the economy are considered to be natural laws, which are correctly captured within the models of mainstream economics—and then, of course, meant to be respected and obeyed....
Occasional Links & Commentary
“They aren’t laws of nature”
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
“They aren’t laws of nature”
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame