3 ms·

Well, the other liberal arts departments don't portend to not be liberal arts departments. Economics sells itself as rigorous and predictive. And "multinational

Well, the other liberal arts departments don't portend to not be liberal arts departments. Economics sells itself as rigorous and predictive. And "multinational capture" has occurred in myriad actual scientific fields, for similar reasons (using the prestige of rigorous, academic work to convince governments to do things). There's also the matter of the "rational actor" theory of human behavior, the a priori assumption of classical economics. It describes a being which is basically non-existent among flesh and blood humans. But corporations can form themselves in the image of this mythical economically rational being. And so, if classical economics does objectively describes the world, corporations are the uber-mensches of such a world and poised to dominate it in perpetuity - a clear incentive to capture and control the field, lest dissident economists succeed in espousing a revision of their core assumptions.

helpfile321 10y ago
You are dismissing an entire field of study because of your own mistaken assumptions. This post is a good example of how it is much easier to accept a simple narrative - "Economics is entirely dependent on an absurd assumption!" - because it offers an illusion of understanding rather than engage with the messy reality.
snrplfth 10y ago
The "rational actor" is just a model, only applicable to limited situations, and acknowledged to be so. It's a specifiable model against which to test hypothoses. This rather shopworn critique - "humans aren't like idealized rational actors!" - is based on the implication that classical-type economists think that the model is fully congruent with reality. They don't! And furthermore, they wouldn't agree that "corporations" (hey, why not unincorporated entities too?) can form themselves in this way. They recognize the limitations of information, incomplete knowledge of preferences, and limited foresight and prediction - and these apply no less to groups of people as they do to individuals. If you tried to suggest in a classical-school economics environment that corporations can actually, in real life, form themselves into idealized rational actors, you'd probably give them gut-busting laughing fits.

helpfile321 10y ago

You are dismissing an entire field of study because of your own mistaken assumptions. This post is a good example of how it is much easier to accept a simple narrative - "Economics is entirely dependent on an absurd assumption!" - because it offers an illusion of understanding rather than engage with the messy reality.

snrplfth 10y ago

The "rational actor" is just a model, only applicable to limited situations, and acknowledged to be so. It's a specifiable model against which to test hypothoses. This rather shopworn critique - "humans aren't like idealized rational actors!" - is based on the implication that classical-type economists think that the model is fully congruent with reality. They don't! And furthermore, they wouldn't agree that "corporations" (hey, why not unincorporated entities too?) can form themselves in this way. They recognize the limitations of information, incomplete knowledge of preferences, and limited foresight and prediction - and these apply no less to groups of people as they do to individuals. If you tried to suggest in a classical-school economics environment that corporations can actually, in real life, form themselves into idealized rational actors, you'd probably give them gut-busting laughing fits.