Display:
You may find this from today's NY Times apropos:

Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy

Yet prominent economics professors say their academic discipline isn't shifting nearly as much as some people might think. Free market theory, mathematical models and hostility to government regulation still reign in most economics departments at colleges and universities around the country. True, some new approaches have been explored in recent years, particularly by behavioral economists who argue that human psychology is a crucial element in economic decision making. But the belief that people make rational economic decisions and the market automatically adjusts to respond to them still prevails.
...
 James K. Galbraith, an economist at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, who has frequently been at odds with free marketers, said, "I don't detect any change at all." Academic economists are "like an ostrich with its head in the sand."

"It's business as usual," he said. "I'm not conscious that there is a fundamental re-examination going on in journals."

Mankiw is not only a traditional (conservative) economist, but a flack for the Republican party. You can judge how open he is to ideas from the fact that he shutdown comments on his blog after it quickly became obvious that many who started reading disagreed with him. He brooks no dissent. I'd hate to be in one of his classes.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:21:08 AM EST
rdf:
I'd hate to be in one of his classes.
The more I think I learn about the economy the more I think I would not have been able to finish an Economics degree. As we say in Spanish, one would have to take Communion with too many millstones [as hosts].

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:27:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been telling people for years now that the woo-woo people need to worry about isn't astrology or faith healing, it's the crackpot pseudo-maths in conservative academic economics.

Because it's not even maths - it's just propaganda with faked-up equations and a lot of pointless shouting.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 10:08:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
of Sokal's hoax, replete with favorable references to the Laffer Curve.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 10:17:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A key factor in Sokal's success was that Social Text was only too happy to publish a paper by a physicist full of quantum gravity jargon.

Economists are not going to be similarly impressed by anything not written by an academic economist.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 10:24:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that I diaried a while back: More (Macro)Economics by Physicists

Haven't heard much about them or their ideas since then (perhaps because, as you wrote in your comment, their conclusions were "not surprising".)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 10:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... hearing. Where are new models going to come from without plundering 50 year old and century old physics?

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Mar 7th, 2009 at 08:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series