> http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/78/thought_control_in_economics.html
>
> In case anyone hasn't thought of this before...!
Good article, M. Thanks for the pointer.
>From the article:
"The mainstream economists don't have the better mousetrap,"
insists [Fred] Lee. "Much neoclassical theory has zero value in
explaining any socially relevant economic problems -- in many
ways, like creationist theory, it fails to offer more than
superficial explanations for most of what we observe in the
world."
A few years ago, I decided that I should read an intro economics text
and pull together my fragmentary knowledge, some of which might even
be called "advanced" but lacking in a systematic basis. After all, if
I could handle vector calculus, physical chemistry, C programming
and the like, Econ 101 shouldn't be too much.
But I never got beyond the first chapter. It was like reading a
carefully written tract for "intelligent design" or a splendiferous
political screed by a well educated crank.
It may be that a large subset of corporate entities and a certain
class of persons act as mainstream economic theory say they will but
people in general just don't settle down to the economists'
procrustean bed. Homo economicus doesn't conform to a simple-minded
notion of markets and more than homo politicus var. democraticus
conforms to the tidy enlightenment notion of the rational citizen.
Current mainstream economics is as much of a religion as mainstream
communism: you have to *just believe* that certain things are
unequivocally true and then all else follows with perfect
reasonableness and proffers cosmic certainty. Makes me think of the
Books of Bokonon.
Thanks again for the pointer,
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
