2 thoughts on “Closed-minded economists”

  1. Posted 15/06/2015 at 16:45 | Permalink

    Excellent article. Once again we find a group of economists starting with a belief and trying to justify it rather than looking at the likely sequence of events as Philip Booth as.

  2. Posted 18/06/2015 at 12:46 | Permalink

    Nice article. Especially liked the point about making economists aware of various schools of economic thought and the fact that they can be wrong.

    End of the day, economics is a social science and with all social sciences there are differing schools of thought.

    Unfortunately, most students are taught only two of these schools of thought (Neo-Classical and Keynesian) and advanced students of economics tend to focus on a single school of thought (usually Keynesian). Sure, they argue on issues but these are mostly around the edges when in reality they are all preaching the same doctrine and applying the same set of economic principles (those of Keynes and proto Keynesians of the past).

    Professional economists often want to apply the principles of the natural sciences to economics but they forget that there are no constants in economics or any social science for that matter. I’ve found the approach of ‘Crusoe Economics’ in determining cause and effect to be very effective. Think of an island with one person and what would happen if some policy was applied to one person. Then what would happen with two people. Then what happens with 10 people and so forth. Eventually, the same results tend to apply to the real economy. One cannot conduct some sort of scenario analysis on an economy as a whole but it helps to think of how individual factors affect a population.

Comments are closed.