5 ms·

> Orthodox (neoclassical) economists like Mankiw tend to be very strongly pro-corporate due to way funding flows in the profession. This borders on conspiracy

> Orthodox (neoclassical) economists like Mankiw tend to be very strongly pro-corporate due to way funding flows in the profession. This borders on conspiracy theory. I was in an econ PhD program for years (though I never quite finished the dissertation), and trust me, economists working in the neoclassical tradition do not need corporate funding to be right of center. Most academic economists aren't getting corporate funding. And there are plenty of left-wing economists whose work is nevertheless mainstream in the sense of living within the neoclassical paradigm. > The myth is that barter arose spontaneously throughout history and that currency arose as a more efficient means of mediating barter. Economists mostly don't care how money arose, and 99.999% of theories in economics would be unchanged if money arose after barter, after credit and debt, or as a result of aliens implanting the idea in ancient peoples' brains.

pydry 5y ago
>This borders on conspiracy theory. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that economists consider "people respond to incentives" as a fundamental building block of economic theory but when the topic is "do economists respond to incentives?" the answer is no, they are only interested in truth. >Most academic economists aren't getting corporate funding. Most programmers arent employed by FAANG but that doesnt stop armies of the ones that arent from idolizing the goog. Using money to build prestige that goes with money does a better job than straight up bribery. Economists are the best paid social scientists by far thanks to the injection of money. Having a seat at the policy table has its advantages - advantages that anthropologists dont get. >And there are plenty of left-wing economists whose work is nevertheless mainstream in the sense of living within the neoclassical paradigm. I wonder if you are using, say, Paul "footsoldier of the DNC" Krugman as an example of "left wing" here because I cant think of any. >Economists mostly don't care how money arose The book addresses this point and explains why Adam Smith (and subsequent thinkers) did care. It's worth a read.

pydry 5y ago

>This borders on conspiracy theory. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that economists consider "people respond to incentives" as a fundamental building block of economic theory but when the topic is "do economists respond to incentives?" the answer is no, they are only interested in truth. >Most academic economists aren't getting corporate funding. Most programmers arent employed by FAANG but that doesnt stop armies of the ones that arent from idolizing the goog. Using money to build prestige that goes with money does a better job than straight up bribery. Economists are the best paid social scientists by far thanks to the injection of money. Having a seat at the policy table has its advantages - advantages that anthropologists dont get. >And there are plenty of left-wing economists whose work is nevertheless mainstream in the sense of living within the neoclassical paradigm. I wonder if you are using, say, Paul "footsoldier of the DNC" Krugman as an example of "left wing" here because I cant think of any. >Economists mostly don't care how money arose The book addresses this point and explains why Adam Smith (and subsequent thinkers) did care. It's worth a read.