3 ms·

Ignoring content and ideology. If mainstream economics is so demonstrably flawed, the best way to make the point is not to childishly disrupt conventions and sp

by greggyb 12y ago

Ignoring content and ideology. If mainstream economics is so demonstrably flawed, the best way to make the point is not to childishly disrupt conventions and speeches, nor to make personally-directed attacks at individuals. The best way to "protest" the flaws would be to consistently and professionally refute the flaws and falsehoods. By making their vehicle a protest rather than a rigorous intellectual deconstruction, at best the message is that they can't come up with more than catchy slogans and loaded (unbacked) statements. I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. Factually, there is huge variation in the economics profession and the claim "Neoclassicism is essentially the standard for 95 percent of the graduate departments in the country." is simply not true. There are many academic foci in economics and a healthy dialogue among proponents of different viewpoints. There is also a vast network of blogs published by both academic economists and amateurs (connotation = non-professional, but well educated on the topic) treating the topic in a more casual tone. Lastly, the representation of neoclassical economics presented is a straw man, and an uninspired one at that: >the fantasy world of neoclassical economics — a faith-based religion of perfect markets, enlightened consumers and infinite growth that shapes the fates of billions. This is the model (excepting infinite growth) typically taught in introductory economics courses of all types. It is not taught as an actual representation of the world (though even as simplified as the models in Intro Micro/Macro carry a great amount of explanatory value over a naive interpretation of matters economic), but as a framework within which the basic principles of economics can be taught. A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
Firstly the model you claim isn't taught as an actual model of the world is - for some reason - exactly the model used to shape national and international economic policy. The European economy has been crippled over the last few years by bankers and ideologues who plainly believe that this model is the only possible way to describe economic activity. You also ignore the fact that the few heterodox economists that exist are utterly ignored by policy makers - even when they continue to make correct predictions about future economic outcomes. >a rigorous intellectual deconstruction Rigorous intellectual deconstructions have existed for decades. They have a much better predictive record than mainstream 'wisdom', but they continue to be ignored by the profession. How do you explain this? I'll explain it by pointing out that mainstream economics has always been a purely political exercise, funded by those who would benefit from it, and created as a deliberate attempt to eliminate the political leverage of those they considered their social and economic inferiors. I wonder how many fans of mainstream economics know anything about the real history of Hayek, or of the Mont Pelerin Society, or the influence of Harold Luhnow and his administration of the Volker Fund, or how the so-called political consensus around free-market liberalism is a wholly manufactured PR exercise and has absolutely no relationship with honest, objective, evidence-based economic science?
- greggyb 12y ago
  > Firstly the model you claim isn't taught as an actual model of the world is - for some reason - exactly the model used to shape national and international economic policy. I claim that it is taught and in the context of a foundational model to build upon. Critiquing the 101 model in any field is a straw-man argument. Politics and economics are deeply intertwined, I agree to the claim earnestly, but it was not the point of my post, nor was it a primary point of the article. The article is directed at academic economics, so I address the attacks on academic economics. Politicians clearly have different incentives than economics (in fact, there is a robust field within economics, Public Choice Theory, which addresses the incentives of politicians and collective actors), and to judge an academic pursuit by politicians' self-serving interpretations of it is disingenuous. If the objection of the protesters is politics, then protest politics, not one of the tools they abuse. >You also ignore the fact that the few heterodox economists that exist are utterly ignored by policy makers - even when they continue to make correct predictions about future economic outcomes. See above - the article and my comment address academics, not politics. >Rigorous intellectual deconstructions have existed for decades. They have a much better predictive record than mainstream 'wisdom', but they continue to be ignored by the profession. They have indeed, and only some few have better predictive records - I'd love to hear which you are referring to (connotation = honestly curious). I'll explain this by saying that you conflate the profession of economist with the profession of politician or politician's supporter. I'll finish by noting that free-market liberalism is not a political consensus, and in fact "unfettered [free-market] [capitalism]" (and various synonyms) is commonly used as a pejorative among the political left of many leanings, and any support for the idea among the political right is lip-service at best and clearly hypocritical based on the often corporatist leanings of right-wing policy. Those on the right who do support free-market liberalism fall more toward Ron Paul and the Tea Party (neither a perfect representation of the ideal, though closer than the majority of the right) and supporters of the man or the party are clearly NOT the political mainstream, but at best a vocal minority. Those on the left supporting free-market liberalism (various anarchist groups and left-libertarians) are, if anything a smaller influence than those on the right, or at least a less discussed vocal minority in the news. The mainstream of both right and left follow remarkably similar economic policies differentiated by the rhetoric used to support them, both tending away from free-market liberalism. The conflation of politics and economics turns most public discourse into a religious war, rather than a reasoned interpretation of academic progress on many fronts (and, as you note, public ignorance of many of those academic fronts).
bjourne 12y ago
It seems like every time there is a demonstration, no matter the subject, someone complains that it is childish and that they should spend their time doing something constructive instead. Maybe post on their Facebook page or something... > I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. So.. because you are to lazy to look up whether they have made good arguments you assume that they haven't? > A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality. No. That would imply that they are cranks and you have no evidence of that. It's like you already have made up your mind on what to think without listening, which is kind of why they have to resort to demonstrations in the first place. :)
- greggyb 12y ago
  >>I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. >So.. because you are to lazy to look up whether they have made good arguments you assume that they haven't? Because I was at work and had limited time, I was limited to the resources linked in the article, which included a very non-rigorous page which is more concerned with its manifesto and self-congratulatorily declaiming the "mainstream." I also had the content of the conference they were protesting, and the quotes in support of their views. The conference, as others have pointed out numerous times covered some pretty heterodox views to begin with, and that it was their choice of target as representative of the mainstream implies a naive understanding of what is and is not mainstream economics. The quotes of the protesters and the economics these quotes represent are not heterodox so much as well-refuted theories, again, as others have covered numerous times in other comments. >>A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality. >No. That would imply that they are cranks and you have no evidence of that. It's like you already have made up your mind on what to think without listening, which is kind of why they have to resort to demonstrations in the first place. :) I have laid out above my reasoning for not putting merit toward their academic rigor. I, personally, loathe the "economics" put forth as support for popular political policy of the day, so I came into the article sympathetic to the thesis. Every element of the article and supporting evidence I was able to find based on my limited time during work pointed to the conclusions that I drew. Finally, it is clear without needing further research that they do clearly hold the belief that the following quote is representative of mainstream economics: "the fantasy world of neoclassical economics — a faith-based religion of perfect markets, enlightened consumers and infinite growth that shapes the fates of billions." This belief is a strawman caricature of an introductory economics model. To declaim mainstream economics based on this understanding is hopelessly naive and is exactly akin to declaim modern physics because of the solar system model of an atom (another 101-level model which is an un-nuanced but accurate in broad strokes model used to introduce new students to a field). Whether the quotation above is central to their argument, or tangential, my comparison holds. Further, the case is much stronger that the quotation above is of primary concern to their argument, which only strengthens any critique based on it. I appreciate your feedback on how to come off less dismissive of the original article.
swatow 12y ago
The claim that neoclassical economics is a straw man, is a double edged sword. On the one hand, you are right the economics can't be accused of ignoring obvious flaws in neoclassical economics (e.g. various market frictions). On the other hand, neoclassical economics contains some core truths that fundamentally inform how most economists think. It is a kind of zero'th order approximation to reality for economists (and the first order approximation is "optimal taxation theory"). So I think that mainstream economists do have a common set of beliefs that is strongly influenced by neoclassical theory (someone else in this page mentioned free trade, which is probably the best example of an application of neoclassical theory that almost all economists agree with).
- greggyb 12y ago
  I don't disagree with the thrust of your post. I'd like to clarify my own position though, as your post makes me feel I was not entirely clear. I claim that the picture the protesters paint of neoclassical economics is a straw man. Perfect markets and enlightened consumers are not an assumption in neoclassical economics, nor are they required to support free trade (to use your own example of an issue with wide agreement).

by greggyb 12y ago

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

Firstly the model you claim isn't taught as an actual model of the world is - for some reason - exactly the model used to shape national and international economic policy. The European economy has been crippled over the last few years by bankers and ideologues who plainly believe that this model is the only possible way to describe economic activity. You also ignore the fact that the few heterodox economists that exist are utterly ignored by policy makers - even when they continue to make correct predictions about future economic outcomes. >a rigorous intellectual deconstruction Rigorous intellectual deconstructions have existed for decades. They have a much better predictive record than mainstream 'wisdom', but they continue to be ignored by the profession. How do you explain this? I'll explain it by pointing out that mainstream economics has always been a purely political exercise, funded by those who would benefit from it, and created as a deliberate attempt to eliminate the political leverage of those they considered their social and economic inferiors. I wonder how many fans of mainstream economics know anything about the real history of Hayek, or of the Mont Pelerin Society, or the influence of Harold Luhnow and his administration of the Volker Fund, or how the so-called political consensus around free-market liberalism is a wholly manufactured PR exercise and has absolutely no relationship with honest, objective, evidence-based economic science?

greggyb 12y ago
> Firstly the model you claim isn't taught as an actual model of the world is - for some reason - exactly the model used to shape national and international economic policy. I claim that it is taught and in the context of a foundational model to build upon. Critiquing the 101 model in any field is a straw-man argument. Politics and economics are deeply intertwined, I agree to the claim earnestly, but it was not the point of my post, nor was it a primary point of the article. The article is directed at academic economics, so I address the attacks on academic economics. Politicians clearly have different incentives than economics (in fact, there is a robust field within economics, Public Choice Theory, which addresses the incentives of politicians and collective actors), and to judge an academic pursuit by politicians' self-serving interpretations of it is disingenuous. If the objection of the protesters is politics, then protest politics, not one of the tools they abuse. >You also ignore the fact that the few heterodox economists that exist are utterly ignored by policy makers - even when they continue to make correct predictions about future economic outcomes. See above - the article and my comment address academics, not politics. >Rigorous intellectual deconstructions have existed for decades. They have a much better predictive record than mainstream 'wisdom', but they continue to be ignored by the profession. They have indeed, and only some few have better predictive records - I'd love to hear which you are referring to (connotation = honestly curious). I'll explain this by saying that you conflate the profession of economist with the profession of politician or politician's supporter. I'll finish by noting that free-market liberalism is not a political consensus, and in fact "unfettered [free-market] [capitalism]" (and various synonyms) is commonly used as a pejorative among the political left of many leanings, and any support for the idea among the political right is lip-service at best and clearly hypocritical based on the often corporatist leanings of right-wing policy. Those on the right who do support free-market liberalism fall more toward Ron Paul and the Tea Party (neither a perfect representation of the ideal, though closer than the majority of the right) and supporters of the man or the party are clearly NOT the political mainstream, but at best a vocal minority. Those on the left supporting free-market liberalism (various anarchist groups and left-libertarians) are, if anything a smaller influence than those on the right, or at least a less discussed vocal minority in the news. The mainstream of both right and left follow remarkably similar economic policies differentiated by the rhetoric used to support them, both tending away from free-market liberalism. The conflation of politics and economics turns most public discourse into a religious war, rather than a reasoned interpretation of academic progress on many fronts (and, as you note, public ignorance of many of those academic fronts).

bjourne 12y ago

It seems like every time there is a demonstration, no matter the subject, someone complains that it is childish and that they should spend their time doing something constructive instead. Maybe post on their Facebook page or something... > I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. So.. because you are to lazy to look up whether they have made good arguments you assume that they haven't? > A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality. No. That would imply that they are cranks and you have no evidence of that. It's like you already have made up your mind on what to think without listening, which is kind of why they have to resort to demonstrations in the first place. :)

greggyb 12y ago
>>I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. >So.. because you are to lazy to look up whether they have made good arguments you assume that they haven't? Because I was at work and had limited time, I was limited to the resources linked in the article, which included a very non-rigorous page which is more concerned with its manifesto and self-congratulatorily declaiming the "mainstream." I also had the content of the conference they were protesting, and the quotes in support of their views. The conference, as others have pointed out numerous times covered some pretty heterodox views to begin with, and that it was their choice of target as representative of the mainstream implies a naive understanding of what is and is not mainstream economics. The quotes of the protesters and the economics these quotes represent are not heterodox so much as well-refuted theories, again, as others have covered numerous times in other comments. >>A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality. >No. That would imply that they are cranks and you have no evidence of that. It's like you already have made up your mind on what to think without listening, which is kind of why they have to resort to demonstrations in the first place. :) I have laid out above my reasoning for not putting merit toward their academic rigor. I, personally, loathe the "economics" put forth as support for popular political policy of the day, so I came into the article sympathetic to the thesis. Every element of the article and supporting evidence I was able to find based on my limited time during work pointed to the conclusions that I drew. Finally, it is clear without needing further research that they do clearly hold the belief that the following quote is representative of mainstream economics: "the fantasy world of neoclassical economics — a faith-based religion of perfect markets, enlightened consumers and infinite growth that shapes the fates of billions." This belief is a strawman caricature of an introductory economics model. To declaim mainstream economics based on this understanding is hopelessly naive and is exactly akin to declaim modern physics because of the solar system model of an atom (another 101-level model which is an un-nuanced but accurate in broad strokes model used to introduce new students to a field). Whether the quotation above is central to their argument, or tangential, my comparison holds. Further, the case is much stronger that the quotation above is of primary concern to their argument, which only strengthens any critique based on it. I appreciate your feedback on how to come off less dismissive of the original article.

swatow 12y ago

The claim that neoclassical economics is a straw man, is a double edged sword. On the one hand, you are right the economics can't be accused of ignoring obvious flaws in neoclassical economics (e.g. various market frictions). On the other hand, neoclassical economics contains some core truths that fundamentally inform how most economists think. It is a kind of zero'th order approximation to reality for economists (and the first order approximation is "optimal taxation theory"). So I think that mainstream economists do have a common set of beliefs that is strongly influenced by neoclassical theory (someone else in this page mentioned free trade, which is probably the best example of an application of neoclassical theory that almost all economists agree with).

greggyb 12y ago
I don't disagree with the thrust of your post. I'd like to clarify my own position though, as your post makes me feel I was not entirely clear. I claim that the picture the protesters paint of neoclassical economics is a straw man. Perfect markets and enlightened consumers are not an assumption in neoclassical economics, nor are they required to support free trade (to use your own example of an issue with wide agreement).