Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah - I agree. It's interesting to think about why that might be the case, though
-clip-
Nowadays behavioural economics is all the rage, relaxing the assumption of rationality, but, fatally, maintaining the methodological individualism, which I think is possibly the most damaging aspect of the core (vying with 'rational expectations'), as I briefly wrote here: http://scandalum.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/choleric-economic-man/
^^^^^ CB: Not to ignore Mike Beggs' explanation of why that might be the case, but somehow I think one factor is that the theory of utility maximization and methodological individualism help maintain the status quo system in however economics and its theories function in capitalism. How specifically, I haven't thought through right now. For one thing , it's probably a placeholder keeping Marxist political economic critique out of play among trade union economists, et al.