>I don't think that theory is paramount, but business has spent hundreds of
>millions of dollars to deform the study of economics. The main thrust of
>economics in the US during the early 20th C. was relatively progressive.
>Many economists were fired. Ford and Rockefeller gave many millions to
>elite departments to change what they taught.
>
>Why bother if the stakes were nil?
I never said the stakes were nil. Just because I said NCE was mostly "ideology" doesn't mean I don't think it's important. I wouldn't be president of the Zizek fan club if I didn't take ideology seriously. It'd be like saying religion was unimportant just because it's a crock.
You've given a historical, materialist explanation of how NCE became the dominant paradigm. Now, of course, the disicpline is largely self-reproducing; you can hardly get a job or an article published if you don't profess the faith. But as a way of understanding the world or as a guide to policy, neoclassical econ is less useful than the Bible, which at least contains some good stories, not to mention some admirable ethical guidelines.
Doug