journaltalk | It seems to me that the dominant narrative of mainstream economics in the past few decades has been one of conquest. If economists engaged with ‘foreigners’ from other fields, it was usually only because they wanted to colonize them. After all, economics may quite well be the last social science where the word imperialism is treated with affection. George Stigler endorsed the field as “an imperial science” that had “been aggressive in addressing central problems in a considerable number of neighboring social disciplines, and without any invitations,” offering an eschatological vision in which he praised “Heinrich Gossen, a high priest of the theory of utility-maximizing behavior” and heralded “the spread of the economists’ theory of behavior to the entire domain of the social sciences” (Stigler 1984, 311-313). Similarly, Gary Becker (1997/1993, 52) argued that “The rational choice model provides the most promising basis presently available for a unified approach to the analysis of the social world by scholars from different social sciences.”
Yet behind this imperialistic rhetoric there has also been a growing feeling of frustration: despite all the battles, economists’ rational proposals, chiseled to perfection, are often ignored. What’s worse, the very methodological foundations of economic science seem to be crumbling as it spreads over an ever growing territory—just like in the case of the (temporarily) eternal imperial Rome (Cullenberg, Amariglio, and Ruccio 2001). Today, the paths to truths seem to be winding and numerous, and some economists are finally willing to admit that unrealistic assumptions are likely to lead to unrealistic, and irrelevant, worlds.2
The core of the trouble with mainstream economics is, I believe, its vision of a utility maximizing human being—the infamous Max U (McCloskey 2010, 297; Lipka 2013). How can we overcome the flatness of the Beckerian-Stiglerian framework? It will perhaps sound daring to economists who have pride in the practicality of their science when I suggest that the place to ask for help is—take a deep breath—theology.
Yet behind this imperialistic rhetoric there has also been a growing feeling of frustration: despite all the battles, economists’ rational proposals, chiseled to perfection, are often ignored. What’s worse, the very methodological foundations of economic science seem to be crumbling as it spreads over an ever growing territory—just like in the case of the (temporarily) eternal imperial Rome (Cullenberg, Amariglio, and Ruccio 2001). Today, the paths to truths seem to be winding and numerous, and some economists are finally willing to admit that unrealistic assumptions are likely to lead to unrealistic, and irrelevant, worlds.2
The core of the trouble with mainstream economics is, I believe, its vision of a utility maximizing human being—the infamous Max U (McCloskey 2010, 297; Lipka 2013). How can we overcome the flatness of the Beckerian-Stiglerian framework? It will perhaps sound daring to economists who have pride in the practicality of their science when I suggest that the place to ask for help is—take a deep breath—theology.
9 comments:
He'll sometimes put a short comment with the title, and, coupled with the labels shown at the bottom, provides some insight into his perspective on the article.
Isn't this just Game Theory as applied by Europeans.
The Economic Wargame is a continuation of the Military Wargame by other means.
The trouble is the planet has finite resources and a finite ability to cope with pollution. Physics and ecology will limit the conquest. But they don't have to keep score. They cannot lose. It does not matter to the planet if it takes 50 million years for new species to evolve.
Also, neoliberalism has a much different meaning than the one you're assigning to it and is at the base of 2parties1ideology
(see Atlas Shrugged)
He's a Randie. (see Bronie)
The topic is "True Believers." The book written about how the much admired Germans elected Hitler. Great book and required reading in the intelligence community. (Also short) The article seems to think early supporters of Hitler's socialist, subversive party are the same as the unorganized crowd of people who want lower taxes.
The classic definition of the term liberal means someone who defends individual freedom. The new definition identifies a philosophy enforcing collective rules and taking their money to hand around to the club. New liberals distrust the individual, but claim to protect them by telling what is good for them. This is not logical and is an example or Orwellian double talk.
Simply, if you pass a law telling people they cannot have a 33 ounce glass of soda, you are not a liberal. If you approve of the NSA recording every word, phone conversation, and picture that everyone has on the Internet, you are the opposite of a liberal. If you decide the government has to change the inalienable right to free speech, this is Reid this week, you are not a liberal - you want to shut up the opposition.
Don't misunderstand, I am not an apologist for the GOP, they are equally interested in state control, but from a different angle. The Dems, these days, are all in and overt with the suppression of individual action, rights, and freedom. They did a great job of subverting the framework of the Constitution, but the pendulum is moving the other way, now. That is fine in the Hegelian method of achieving change.
I always recommend watching Atlas Shrugged. It is very clear how the oligarchy controls the individual by using the collective.
"The new definition identifies a philosophy enforcing collective rules and taking their money to hand around to the club. New liberals distrust the individual, but claim to protect them by telling what is good for them. This is not logical and is an example or Orwellian double talk."
That sounds like a government. How are laws enforced without resources? As for your second point, the world today is radically different from the one that the constitution was written in. We have nuclear weapons, 3d printers can make functioning guns, we have cell phones, today's farming technology can feed billions, with a few hundred dollars you can take a trip to just about anywhere in the world, we have the web, etc. How do we make sure the planes work? How do we keep farmers from depleting the soil? How do we make sure mass produced food isn't poisoning people?
Your understanding of social contract theory is questionable. You should read John Locke, Rouseau, John Rawls, and Hannah Arendt.
Ok..sounds like you are intertwining "socialism" with "collectivism" but I see where you are coming from. It's probably best you use "socialist" and "socialism" versus collectivism which have a totally different context.
C'mon, man. If you can run candidates and win elections at the federal and state levels in one election cycle, you're very well organized. Occupy Wall Street is what a disorganized group would look like.
A classic liberal would be someone that believes the government is not sovereign and that it has obligations to the citizens. Proper liberalism is something that citizens have to work for. If you don't work for it, you get some of what we have today.
"...what economics can learn from theology about human beings..."
A well-organized and promoted snowjob can trump an unlimited number of readily verifiable observations...
Post a Comment