2 ms·
One possibility, which I believe to be correct, is that what the parent wrote above isn't true. Economists study a field in which many people both have a strong
by edanm 10y ago
One possibility, which I believe to be correct, is that what the parent wrote above isn't true. Economists study a field in which many people both have a strong bias, and a strong belief they know what they're talking about. Not many people vigorously disagree with historians cause not many people care that much about history. With economics, they do care.
Which means that when economists have theories that fly in the face of what people believe (like pretty much all of science), people get more annoyed.
- enoch_r 10y agoYeah, I probably wasn't obvious enough--my point was that if your hypothesis is "big companies capture academic fields," then you would not predict a world where economics, and only economics, is captured by "big multinationals." (And why "multinationals" instead of, say, the many large and powerful companies that benefit from tariffs and other protectionist policies?) To me (like you), that suggests that GP is telling a just-so story about why we can ignore economists.