[lbo-talk] "Bedlamite economics" and the EMH

[Miles Jackson]

Mike Beggs wrote:
> Actually we should probably distinguish between economics the social
> science and Economics the discipline. The former being 'the study of
> economic phenomena' and the latter 'what happens in Economics
> departments and journals'. Economics the discipline is weird among the
> academic social sciences in teaching a doctrinal core like a natural
> or physical science. You don't really learn much about debates until
> you reach a pretty high level. 

The important distinction here is that the "doctrinal core" of a field 
like Chemistry or Physics has been empirically validated.  We know that 
the basic assumptions held by neo-classical economists are wrong.  One 
simple example: the notion that people are utility maximizers has been 
refuted in study after study in decades of psychological research.  It's 
bizarre to me that economists continue to cling to fundamental premises 
that have been empirically discredited.

Miles