In a few seconds of partly facetious, partly very serious discussion. He’s not far from the truth either!
And, yes, as Searle says, we can indeed have an epistemologically objective science of economics, even though important things in economic life are subjective in a deeper sense (e.g., expectations, subjective utility) than just being “observer-relative.”
The epistemologically objective science we need is Post Keynesian economics. Everything else is charlatanry, pseudo-science, or, at most, just a pale imitation of Post Keynesian economics.
"The epistemologically objective science we need is Post Keynesian economics. Everything else is charlatanry, pseudo-science, or, at most, just a pale imitation of Post Keynesian economics."
ReplyDeleteYou are starting to sound like an internet Austrian.
Plus one, alas. Even to the odd dogmatic beliefs about human minds.
DeleteNeoclassicals of various kinds will say their theory is the only objective science of economics too. Everybody else is wrong, they say.
DeleteMarxists say their theory is the only objective science of economics too. Everybody else is wrong, the say.
So take your pick: Marxism, Post Keynesianism, neoclassical theory (of various stripes), Austrianism.
Either 1 is right, and (given severe differences between them) the rest must be wrong. Or maybe none are right.
Or maybe some are closer to the truth than others.
PK economics is right, to my mind. Tell me which one you would choice.
Well LK i am thinking like you there is no dount for me which school of economics describe economic process the best but stil i think we should give big credits to institutionalist school of economic thought humanistic school of economic thought which basically is the post keynesian microeconomics.
DeleteAlso there is economists like ha joon chang which influenced my opinion about protectionism.
Or mmt followers which give new insights on post keynesian macroeconomics.
But generally i think you are right and also i want to tell you thank you and your blog without your blog i would never know about post keynesianism.
Yes, Daniel, but I think the crucial points are:
Delete(1) yes, modern non-neoclassical institutionalism is very good, but if you look carefully at this school, they pretty much agree with PK theory on virtually all core economics issues! Their research program -- social, gender, or institutional issues -- is complementary and ancillary to PK economics.
Also, it took me a while to realise this, but early 20th century institutionalism borrowed a lot from Marshallian economics, and to that extent it is flawed.
(2) also, MMT, in my view, is just a subschool of PK economics. Same with heterodox development economists like Ha-Joon Chang and Erik S. Reinert, though they are both very good people.
LK
ReplyDeleteYes you are right the only thing i meant is that PK should stay flexiable and acceptable and avoid dogmatism PK economists shouldnt do the same mistake as the mainstream economists.
But i believe that PK will avoid the faith of the mainstream economics.