On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Not true. It's EASY to find 5 or 100 or even 1000 economics articles > "trashing the main ideas of free market economics." The hegemony of > free market economics is not total, especially with liberals like > Akerlof, Arrow, Krugman, Myrdal, or Stiglitz getting Economics Prizes > in Honor of Alfred Nobel. They're (new Deal) liberals, yes, but that's > not the same as "free market economics."
Krugman and Stiglitz are liberals, yes, but they are hardly radical in the sense that they do not in any way challenge the underlying assumptions of classical economic analysis. At best, we can credit them with a nuanced approach that Chicago-types seem to be incapable of. In fact, Krugman has explicitly defended the premises of economic analysis like self-interested rational individuals etc: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/evolute.html Elinor Ostrom is the closest to a radical; while her Nobel is a good sign perhaps, from what I understand her work on the commons was definitely not published in any mainstream economics journals. > Even though economics will never be a science like physics, it's good > discipline to try. I think that'd be a terrible idea. Some people (Mirowski) have argued that it was physics-envy in the first place that directly gave birth to the methodology of neo-classical economics that was later coopted for ideological purposes. -raghu. -- "I bought some batteries, but they weren't included." - Steven Wright _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
