Oh how brave they are to love the state
Many people have sent us this article from the NYT, one that recounts how a small but exceedingly brave group of heterodox economists have dared question the free-market orthodoxy of the profession. It's the same version of this article that appears every few years, and the story is as tedious as it is strangely false at its root: 1) there is no free-market orthodoxy in the profession apart from a few issues concerning trade and price controls, 2) it is not an example of heroic courage to dare to fall in love with the prospect of a state-managed economic order. Ho hum.
Comments (6)
Methinks
Oh, for the love of Mike! What else can we expect from New York Pravda?
Mankiw posted this same article on his blog. The only orthodoxy I've managed to discern from the profession is that most economists believe themselves to be in a position to decide on behalf of the less smart, less educated, unwashed plebes! In fact, this narcissism tends to plague all of academia. They just can't come to terms with the reality that uber-smart superbrains can't make better decisions on behalf of the Cretans than the dumb Cretans can make for themselves and those damned Cretans don't want to submit to them either (the gall!!). With nobody willing to submit to their aggrandized greatness, dispirited economists turn to government to coerce the ungrateful plebes to submit to these award winning economists' breathless vision.
I guess we can just thank our lucky stars that we can rely on the New York Times to ignore the rivers of blood and stunted economic growth that has characterized every command economy and breathlessly hang on Krugman's every deleterious argument printed in its pages.
What a crock.
Published: July 12, 2007 1:09 PM
L.R.
"In Lee's view, for example, oil companies - not the natural workings of the market - determine gas prices."
Yeah! Companies setting prices for their goods has no place in a free market!
Published: July 13, 2007 4:14 PM
olmedo
unfortunately, these fools will start reproducing like flies as the empire of debt, we are living now in, begins crashing down and all the gong ho (wall street lackies) neoclassical economists will start having a harder and harder time explaining the declining standard of living in America.
is time for Austrians to shape up or these guys will take control.
olmedo
Published: July 14, 2007 9:21 AM
N. Joseph Potts
"Most efforts to intervene in the markets...are viewed askance by mainstream economists, as are analyses that do not rely on mathematical modeling."
The second part of this remark (mathematical modeling) should resonate among those with an attachment to Austrian economics. The first part might not, but that may be because of our perspective on the matter. As Blinder says, "Most," and in this I feel he is quite correct. As to readers of this blog, "All" might be the better modifier (certainly for me).
Blinder is making his personal grab for government-based power (that, or he's just plain stupid). Economists, for example, tend to oppose the minimum wage UNTIL they acquire ambitions in the institutions of coercion. At that point, they become very recognizably weird.
Exactly as Blinder is doing. Good name, that one has.
Published: July 15, 2007 11:30 AM
Kevin Carson
If you think the article's characterization of mainstream economics as "free market othodoxy" is laughable, perhaps you shouldn't take the blanket treatment of heterodox economics as anti-market at face value either.
The New Institutionalists, for example, are quite good at dealing with governance issues inside the hierarchical firm, which is largely ignored by most orthodox price theory. It's not only the mainstream neoclassicals who treat the firm as a production function and its internal workings as a black box. Many Austrians have done the same: e.g., Mises, treating the firm--thanks to the magic of double-entry bookkeeping--as a unitary expression of the entrepreneur's will.
Published: July 16, 2007 1:42 AM
Methinks
"Blinder is making his personal grab for government-based power (that, or he's just plain stupid). Economists, for example, tend to oppose the minimum wage UNTIL they acquire ambitions in the institutions of coercion. At that point, they become very recognizably weird."
Too true. And Blinder isn't at all stupid. Oh no! He is very careful to point out that he disapproves of tariffs and other such protectionist measures! Instead he wants more wealth redistribution so that the "winners" in free trade subsidize the "losers" because we all know that the "losers" - who he claims will be white collar doctors, programmers and Finance pros - will be too stupid and incompetent to adjust to the new economic environment without him stealing from the "winners" and subsidizing the "loser's" malaise.
Alan doesn't want trade barriers. No, he wants socialism and people's irrational fear of free markets and free trade is just the crisis this socialist monkey needs to implement his Grand Socialist Plan. Wanna bet it'll be a five year plan?
Published: July 16, 2007 12:50 PM