by From Asad Zaman and the current issue of the RWER In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, the failure of economic theories, and of economists, to provide any warnings, analysis, or remedies, became glaringly obvious to all. The Queen of England went to the London School of Economics to ask “Why did no one see it coming?”. The US Congress constituted a committee to investigate why “economics, a field that aspires to be a science … (but) … generally accepted economic models inclined the Nation’s policy makers to dismiss the notion that a crisis was possible.” General discontent with economics has been captured in books too numerous to list; as a small sample chosen at random, consider Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences, Joe Earle, Cahal Moran
Topics:
Editor considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
John Quiggin writes Trump’s dictatorship is a fait accompli
Peter Radford writes Election: Take Four
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Employment growth in Europe. Stark differences.
Merijn T. Knibbe writes In Greece, gross fixed investment still is at a pre-industrial level.
from Asad Zaman and the current issue of the RWER
In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, the failure of economic theories, and of economists, to provide any warnings, analysis, or remedies, became glaringly obvious to all. The Queen of England went to the London School of Economics to ask “Why did no one see it coming?”. The US Congress constituted a committee to investigate why “economics, a field that aspires to be a science … (but) … generally accepted economic models inclined the Nation’s policy makers to dismiss the notion that a crisis was possible.” General discontent with economics has been captured in books too numerous to list; as a small sample chosen at random, consider Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences, Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins: The Econocracy: The Perils of Leaving Economics to the Experts, and Phillip Pilkington: The Reformation in Economics: A Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Economic Theory.
g economists have expressed serious dis-satisfaction with the profession as a whole. John Cassidy’s article “After the Blowup …” in The New Yorker describes his interviews with apostates from the Chicago creed. Krugman wrote that the “Profession as a whole went astray because they mistook the beauty of mathematics for truth.” David Romer wrote that economists’ “dismissal of fact goes …(so)… far beyond post-modern irony” that it should be called “post-real”. He wrote that the profession has been moving backwards, losing precious insights gained. Olivier Blanchard, Chief Economist at IMF writes that DSGE models make “assumptions profoundly at odds with what we know about consumers and firms”. This is just a small sampler; we can easily find many other similar statements from leading economists, and practitioners intimately involved with finance and central banks on a global level[1].
Despite widespread dis-satisfaction, the vast majority of dissidents argue that no paradigm shift is required. Instead of a complete overhaul, we just need to patch-up the problem areas. All of the dissidents have their own favourite culprits – like the DSGE models, rational expectations, ARCH/GARCH methodology for risk assessments, failure to include the finance sector, etc. etc. etc. In contrast to this reformation, I would like to argue for a revolution. We need to re-think the whole project of economics from scratch.[2] Just like modern astronomy was created by rejecting the concept of the heavenly spheres on which the stars rotated around the earth, so creating a viable economics for the 21st century requires rejecting the entire edifice of modern economics. The process by which a paradigm shift can be created differs radically from normal science, which involves looking at problems within existing theory and patchwork modifications. As opponents point out errors and difficulties with the maximization/equilibrium methodology, proponents can find ways to patch up the conventional framework to deal with new challenges. This is how Ptolemaic astronomy evolved. If the original spheres did not suffice, then new spheres were added, and if the second did not suffice to match observational evidence, a third sphere was added. Rethinking the whole framework from scratch cannot be done in a piecemeal way. read more
[1] For a selection of choice quotes, see: Quotes Critical of Economics.
[2] See my “Questioning ALL of Economics?“