On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 kjkhoo at softhome.net wrote:
> Astrology hardly rules our lives -- at least, not yet, until the
> goons in Washington and at the so-called international institutions
> pick up on it and make decisions based on it. Meanwhile, neoclassical
> economics rules -- and with ever greater vigour and extension as more
> and more future rulers and decision makers get their training in the
> US.
This assumes that policy makers follow a consistent, rigorous set of neoeconomic principles. Let's face it: decision makers in the U.S. often violate the principles of classical economics when it's politically convenient (e.g., Bush, steel tariffs and agriculture subsidies). In fact, neoclassical economics does not "rule", despite the claims of some economists (and strangely, some leftists). Try out Barthes' substitution rule here: would U. S. political policy change dramatically if economics departments in the U. S. were shut down? As far as I can see, pols would continue to advocate policies that enrich political donors. At best, classical economic theory is post hoc justification for policies that decision makers originally advocated for a variety of reasons--few of which involve rigorous application of intellectually consistent principles.
Miles