http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA09EconomistGalbraith.pdf
The two groups share a common perspective, a preference for thinking along similar lines. Krugman describes this well, as a "desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess." Exactly so. It was in part about elegance--and in part about showing off. It was not about ... the economy. It was not a discussion of problems, risks, dangers, and policies. In consequence, the failure was shared by both groups. This is the extraordinary thing. Economics was not riven by a feud between Pangloss and Cassandra. It was all a chummy conversation between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. And if you didn't think either Tweedle was worth much--well then, you weren't really an economist, were you?
It is therefore pointless to continue with conversations centered on the conventional economics. The urgent need is instead to expand the academic space and the public visibility of ongoing work that is of actual value when faced with the many deep problems of economic life in our time. It is to make possible careers in those areas, and for people with those perspectives, that have been proven worthy by events. This is--obviously--not a matter to be entrusted to the economics department themselves. It is an imperative, instead, for university administrators, for funding agencies, for foundations, and for students and perhaps their parents. The point is not to argue endlessly with Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The point is to move past them toward the garden that must be out there, that in fact is out there, somewhere.
Of course, there were exceptions to these trends: a few economists challenged the assumption of rational behavior, questioned the belief that financial market can be trusted and pointed to the long history of financial crises that had devastating economic consequences. But they were swimming against the tide, unable to make much headway against a pervasive and, in retrospect, foolish complacency. --Paul Krugman, New York Times Magazine, September 6, 2009 A men. While normal ecclesiastic practice places this word at the end of the prayer, on this occasion it seems right to put it up front. In two sentences, Professor Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics for 2008 and in some ways the leading economist of our time, has summed up the failure of an entire era in economic thought, practice, and policy discussion. And yet, there is something odd about the role of this short paragraph in an essay of over 6,500 words. It 's a throwaway. It leads nowhere. Apart from one other half-sentence, and three passing mentions of one person, it 's the only discussion--the one mention in the entire essay--of those economists who got it right. They are not named. Their work is not cited. Their stor y remains untold. Despite having been right on the greatest economic question of a generation--they are unpersons in the tale.
Of course, there were exceptions to these trends: a few economists challenged the assumption of rational behavior, questioned the belief that financial market can be trusted and pointed to the long history of financial crises that had devastating economic consequences. But they were swimming against the tide, unable to make much headway against a pervasive and, in retrospect, foolish complacency. --Paul Krugman, New York Times Magazine, September 6, 2009
While normal ecclesiastic practice places this word at the end of the prayer, on this occasion it seems right to put it up front. In two sentences, Professor Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics for 2008 and in some ways the leading economist of our time, has summed up the failure of an entire era in economic thought, practice, and policy discussion.
And yet, there is something odd about the role of this short paragraph in an essay of over 6,500 words. It 's a throwaway. It leads nowhere. Apart from one other half-sentence, and three passing mentions of one person, it 's the only discussion--the one mention in the entire essay--of those economists who got it right. They are not named. Their work is not cited. Their stor y remains untold. Despite having been right on the greatest economic question of a generation--they are unpersons in the tale.
