Economic Culture Wars

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, for once that I take time to read a long article in English on the economics board of this forum, because the title was appealing, and because my eyes afforded it, there isn't the slightest argument in all these lines to make his point. All along the lines the author describe a situation, period, he doesn't mind to provide evidence of it.

Also, amusing that evolution comes here, haha, biology and economics.

Also, the guy should figure out that focusing on mathematical models without being able to put words on what the hell was happening has recently put the global economy in a weird situation.

And also, best scientists have been those who have been the most able to describe, synthesize, and put in words to make understand to others what their work was about, and the explanations of their results.

You should always pay attention to stuffs you can't word.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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.

Yes, personally it made me laugh because when you make this association between economics and biology, there can also be the bit you could have heard here or there, and maybe still: 'modern economy is the most natural way that exists'. Trying to make of the current economic models the most compatible ones with human biology, in order to inherently legitimate them.

Krugman isn't trying to say Biology = Economics. Rather the conclusion that Krugman comes to is that:

Math avoidance => Leads to shallow thinking.

Outside of the fact that there isn't argument to make his point, just affirmations, and that evolutionary biology can be easily used as Beet said because this field is up to a lot of debates in the scientific community, it just made me laugh to find once again biology side by side with economics to try to make a point, the point of this article is:

Word avoidance => Not a problem, some things don't need word.