...why do critics of "mainstream" or "orthodox" economics always have such a distinct ideological background? They're always either well to the left or well to the right. In contrast, defenders of mainstream economics run the gamut from left to right.
Does this tell us anything about the nature or value of the dissenting position? Is there a reason for this? Is there a good reason for this? Or is my premise wrong: do the dissenters actually have the same ideological distribution as the mainstream (note: thinking up one centrist dissenter does not refute the premise)?
Friday, May 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Is it an ideological "background" or is it a consequence of certain economic conclusions?
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? The most prominent critics of mainstream economics are politically centrist people who hate free trade.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started to study economics I quickly gravitated towards Austrian economics because it seemed to make sense post 2008. This then spurred an interested in libertarian politics as this seemed a logical derivation from the economics. I believe however that many Austrians went the other way - from libertarianism to economics. I thinks this is what spawns the phenomenon known as "Internet Austrianism". There is not yet a term for "internet-post-keynsian" or "internet-MMter" but there probably should be.
ReplyDeleteI assume that many mainstream economists gravitated towards economics at at time when neo-classical economics made sense, and they just brought their ideological baggage with them - hence the wide spread of views.
KANT MARX MISES and the PRAXIS probably have allot to do with it -- it's a "German" thing DK
ReplyDeleteside note: I suspect a large number of mainstream econ critics start with mainstream economic inspired positions -- "economics"(if only watered down rhetoric) informing politics -- then as new information is acquired in a effort to stamp out intellectual "contradiction" one may gradually move further left or right from one's original positions -- reworking "consistently" one's perspective -- before Ron Paul -- I imagine many who moved toward austecon preceded the move with a love of everything Friedman
undeveloped -- I'm thinking positions concerning "monetary policy" also play a major role in both critical camps -- all that being said I still feel you answered your own question in the question better
I assume you mean in macro. Because micro-dissenters are called: the public.
ReplyDelete