I think this discussion tiptoes around an elephant in the room and that is that the survival of even the most marginalized heterodox or lefty economists in academia depends, as a prerequisite, on the discipline retaining some semblance of legitimacy, whether or not it deserves it. In my view, economics is irreparably broken as a scholarly discipline. It is broken by what is not just an epidemic but a tradition of bad faith.
I picked up a copy of "Economics for Dummies" today at the library because of some material in it I'm critiquing. Just out of curiousity, I turned to the entry on Karl Marx. Ha ha ha! Let's just say the author makes up a bunch of stuff... Well no, let's not say that because he didn't make it up. The made up stuff circulates in the mental baggage of mainstreamers without a moment's hesitation to consult the original source. And that's the problem. There is no integrity of sources in economics. There may be among individual economists. But there is not only no overarching ethic of scholarly scruples but an actual disdain for "running through the intellectual history of who said what to whom" (actual quote from editor of prestige journal). Oh, dear, that's not economics, that's history of economic thought or some such. Bullshit. Economists conveniently forget more real, hard-core economics every day in their practice than they ever learned in school.
But to get back to my point: lefty and heterodox economists in the academy will for the most part hold back from going for the disciplinary jugular because it is also the hand that feeds them, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. If economics was "disgraced" as a discipline in the university it wouldn't be the fringe elements who would survive the downsizing. Of course, you'll usually find that scholars who acknowledge this but shake the pillars of the temple anyway don't stay around for long. It's called cognitive dissonance.
The Sandwichman
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I picked up a copy of "Economics for Dummies" today at the library because of some material in it I'm critiquing. Just out of curiousity, I turned to the entry on Karl Marx. Ha ha ha! Let's just say the author makes up a bunch of stuff... Well no, let's not say that because he didn't make it up. The made up stuff circulates in the mental baggage of mainstreamers without a moment's hesitation to consult the original source. And that's the problem. There is no integrity of sources in economics. There may be among individual economists. But there is not only no overarching ethic of scholarly scruples but an actual disdain for "running through the intellectual history of who said what to whom" (actual quote from editor of prestige journal). Oh, dear, that's not economics, that's history of economic thought or some such. Bullshit. Economists conveniently forget more real, hard-core economics every day in their practice than they ever learned in school.
But to get back to my point: lefty and heterodox economists in the academy will for the most part hold back from going for the disciplinary jugular because it is also the hand that feeds them, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. If economics was "disgraced" as a discipline in the university it wouldn't be the fringe elements who would survive the downsizing. Of course, you'll usually find that scholars who acknowledge this but shake the pillars of the temple anyway don't stay around for long. It's called cognitive dissonance.
The Sandwichman
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, there used to be a bunch of lefty economists at UC Berkeley who
were disguised as math-econ types. There's also the group associated
with the Labor Center (Clair Brown, Michael Reich, etc.)
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
