Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I agree and disagree.

Economics, as practiced, is profoundly unscientific in numerous deep particulars.

(There are exceptions, though these are largely peripheral and or heterdoxical.)

It need not be, and I've described the fallacy of "no controlled experiments" as regards several other fields in a recent comment. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17998690)

I'd argue that a principle failing of economics -- and one which can be found to apply to its sibling spin-outs of moral philosophy -- is what W. Brian Arthur has observed: formulation of economic theory, or selection among competing theories for inclusion into pedagogy, virtually always occurs in the context of policy formation. That is, these are inherently political.

And Smith's curt not, that "wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power" (incorrectly attributed elsewhere to Marx), plays into the selection of texts for teaching, the granting of tenure, the establishment of departments. Before the Koch brothers were financing, and calling shots oncurricula and faculty, in Florida and at George Mason University, an earlier oil baron, J.D. Rockefeller, was establishing the Chicago School. Each is curiously mute on that intersection of wealth and power Smith highlighted, particularly as concerns monopoly. A topic almost wholly missing from the Libertarian economics bible by Henry Hazlitt.

One wonders why this might be.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: