I'm not in academia because I grappled with micro economics and was
unwilling, though able, to teach the required subject matter. I
taught a micro that was dynamic, bounced off Sraffa and all that,
learned from Kay Hunt and others. That was and I suppose still is
unacceptable.
It is not possible to persuade (!) academic economists that what
they know to be false should not be taught.
There was a remark on PAE (which is a major disappointment to me)
that economists keep two sets of books. One, the one Gintis seems to
be describing, has all the new bells and whistles that shows people
working on new fixes for what cannot be fixed. The second is the one
economists trot out in the classroom and use effectively with
journalists and policy makers to deflect criticism of or attacks on
the status quo.
Gene Coyle
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Julio Huato wrote:
Ted Winslow wrote:
Unconsciously anchored delusional
thinking can't be corrected simply
by pointing out that it's delusional.
Go ahead. Try and psychoanalyze the economists without their consent.
As far as I'm concerned (given my job), I am mostly concerned with the
newer generations, students of economics, colleagues, etc. But,
whatever, I am not saying that economists (or humans beings, in
general), especially when a strong material interest steers their
minds towards rationalizing the status quo, are easy to persuade.
All I'm saying is that we won't know how easy or difficult it is
persuade anybody until we try. It seems obvious to me that persuading
smart young people is worth the try. However, a minimal condition is
that the effort is honest, in the sense that one seriously grapples
with the subject matter that one is critiquing.
