Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
bostonreview.net
Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
1–10 of 143 posts
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#2Tom Woods has a series of good critiques of Piketty.
Here’s one:
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#3Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".
Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests.
The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite basic at that.
The rest are establishment ideology plus/minus some personal improvising to the left or right, and obscurantism, - just like "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" (the conceptual part that gave us the 20th century visual atrocities) and so on.
For real science one needs to stick to physics, chemistry, engineering, and other "hard" stuff.
Heck, even Computer Science itself (whose actual scientific part is basically math as well), is taught, and practiced like fashion, based on commercial trends du jour...
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#4I've experienced a similar response from people I talk with. It's such a simple premise and idea that seems oversimplified and lacks nuance. The main issue is that it is so against the way the system currently world, there's no foreseeable solution.
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#5Because he's wrong, and people who stake their livelihood on these things (not academic economists) know it and act accordingly.
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#6Arguably, as with Nancy MacLean, it is his continued refusal to acknowledge or address methodological (https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Warshawsky-Piketty-v2....) and data (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/10/pi...) errors.
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#7Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…
FYI: Looks like the back part of your comment got cut off.
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#8Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…
FYI: Looks like the back part of your comment got cut off.
Thanks, fixed it. Posted it prematurely to not lose my train of thought, but caught a part midway.
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#9Because he's wrong, and people who stake their livelihood on these things (not academic economists) know it and act accordingly.
[deleted]
Re: Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
#10Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!". Economists' careers as receivers of grants, policy advisors, members of prestigious think tanks and organizations, and pundits, depends on being good at promoting whatever aligns with the elite's interests. The scientific parts of economics are merely applied math (including game theory), and quite…
> Because, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".
Alternative hypothesis: they disagree.
Disagreeing isn't ignoring. It isn't a conspiracy. It's just disagreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...