Beet
Atlas Star
Posts: 29,076
|
 |
« on: January 21, 2010, 05:56:16 PM » |
|
This article was written 14 years ago; Krugman has since modified his views.
In this article Krugman accomplishes something which professional economics sees as the holy grail but which it has never been able to fully accomplish-- the equation of neoclassical economics with "a science", such as evolutionary biology. The word is thrown in so casually, and in the context of a point about a different debate altogether, that it is very, very easy to miss. That was probably deliberate, since that is the real question that economics faces, while Krugman's characterization of Kuttner's position acts as both a strawman and a red herring.
It's easy not even to think about why Krugman chose evolutionary biology as an example of "a science", and not, say, molecular biology, genetics, organic chemistry, or physics. It's because if he had chosen any of those, the difference with economics would have been obvious. But evolutionary biology, as a fellow soft science but with considerable more agreement and legitimacy to it than economics, serves as the perfect bridge for Krugman's sleight of hand.
|
