I’m just starting to read Debunking Economics by Steve Keen
He describes Neoclassic economics (which has marginalized all other flavors from Academia) as a classic crowd in the passage below:
A major reason for Bernanke’s inability to accept that the core of neoclassical economics is `irrelevant or at least significantly flawed’ …[is] faith [that] emanates from the seductive nature of the neoclassical vision. It portrays capitalism as the perfect system, in which the market ensures that everything is just right…
This faith is maintained by a paradoxical, transcendental truth: *neoclassical economists don’t understand neoclassical economics*. Their belief that it is a coherent, comprehensive theory of how a market economy operates is based on a profound ignorance of the actual foundations of the theory.
In one sense, their ignorance is utterly justified, because they are behaving in the same way that professionals do in genuine sciences like physics. Most physicists don’t check what Einstein actually wrote on the Theory of Relativity, because they are confident that Einstein got it right, and that their textbooks accurately communicate Einstein’s core ideas. Similarly most “economists don’t check to see whether core concepts like `supply and demand microeconomics’ or `representative agent macroeconomics are properly derived from well-grounded foundations, because they simply assume that if they’re taught by the textbooks, then there must be original research that confirms their validity.
In fact, the exact opposite is the case: *the original research confirms that these concepts are false*. Virtually every concept that is taught as gospel in the textbooks has been proved to be unsound in the original literature.
If they actually appreciated what the foundations were — and how utterly flawed they really are — then neoclassical economists would run a mile from their beliefs, and feel compelled to look for alternatives. But they have no knowledge of the actual state of neoclassical economics because their education shields them from it, right from their very first exposure to economic theory.”
Debunking Economics p17-18 Steve Keen
I have to take issue with his analogy to physicists. It doesn’t really matter whether you read Einstein’s exact words, but I certainly understood the derivation from first principles for everything I knew, and where there were potential conceptual problems (such as rigorous mathematics not being fully worked out by rigorous mathematicians) I was aware of that too. I have the impression that’s true of all competent physicists for all core physics. That’s why studying physics requires 7 years of dedication. I have observed very strong physicists swept up in Global Warmism without actually thinking it through to the scientific basis, and seen them shy away from looking at it when I asked, but for core physics I believe we all verify logically. That’s probably a huge part of the difference between physics and economics, or any other mushy field.
By the way, after several days delay, the journal assigned an MS number to my paper on vaccine safety, and I think they are reviewing it. Stay tuned.