The article suggests that economists had only realized recently that the “homo oeconomicus” paradigm is misleading, when other social sciences such as philosophy and sociology had come to that conclusion long ago.INET Blog
Cracks in the German Economic Orthodoxy: Is Economic Theory Detached From Reality?
INET
Favorite line:
Hayek: No one can be a great economist simply by being an economist, and I am even tempted to add that someone who is only an economist can easily become a nuisance, if not a real danger.
5 comments:
The head of the Bundesbank, Jens Weidmann, is now suggesting the ECB bon-buying plan is "the work of the devil" that will lead to rampant inflation. The guy is a complete idiot.
“Stabilized capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is change. Its tense is not the present but the future. Its modes are not cycle and repetition but expansion and transformation. Its money is not accumulated wealth (capital) but created promises (credit)."
By way of an example of what “economic orthodoxy” hasn’t tumbled to, the INET article tells us “word should have got round by now that no market has ever been immune to political influence and that people are not entirely predictable, rational beings.” No kidding?
My guess is that the average intelligent fifteen year old and 99% of “orthodox economists” would regard the above two points as statements of the blindingly obvious.
Economists don’t need advice from philosophers or sociologists - particularly the latter.
Best example of people not being rational are the neoclassical economists.
Economists don’t need advice from philosophers or sociologists - particularly the latter.
That seems to be the prevailing view among mainstream economists already.
"Best example of people not being rational are the neoclassical economists."
Kaj, There may be a purpose in their irrationality.
Read Matt Taibbi's latest:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-rare-look-at-why-the-government-wont-fight-wall-street-20120918
Post a Comment