>If the Shrub started to make policy based on the
>position of Saturn, then you might have to. For
>crying out loud, we are still arguing over evolution.
How much does Shrub justify policy on the basis of neoclassical econ? It's all about rewarding his friends - clearcut the national forests, break unions, cut wages, drill in ANWR, cut the taxes of centimillionaires, etc. Insofar as they use any theory to justify it, it's bastard supply-side-ism, with a few supply and demand curves thrown in for people who remember Econ 101. The Fed makes policy on the basis of instinct, anecdote, and their judgment of the balance of class forces.
Neoclassical econ is more interesting as an ideology (as is astrology). It obviously has so little to do with the real world, the real question is what purposes its preposterous theories serve. If it were more relevant to policy than it is, then the chair of the CEA would be an important figure in the government instead of a largely useless figurehead. And so what if neoclassical economics has no explanation of profit. Bourgeois society has a couple - the reward for risk-taking and the source of investment funds.
I suppose if I were an actual economist I wouldn't enjoy the luxury of dismissing the whole enterprise rudely. But I'm not, so I do.
Doug