He he, spodnji komentar je hud. Razsuje ekonomijo (kot “znanstveno napako“) in ekonomiste (kot pripadnike ene izmed štirih sekt s “podstandardnimi znanstvenimi sposobnostmi“), ki svoje pristope utemljujejo na “nesprejemljivih predpostavkah”. Ne bom nič komentiral. Pa ne zato, ker bi se strinjal, ampak ker mi je komentar zabaven. Smejati se na svoj račun je tudi vrlina, mar ne? Zabaven mi je tudi ponujen alternativni model. Zelo.
“… economics is a big omnibus which contains many passengers of incommensurable interests and abilities.” (Schumpeter, 1994, p. 827)
Economics is a scientific failure. Being stranded in the middle of nowhere, evidently, no one other is responsible than the confused drivers/passengers of the big omnibus themselves. These can be roughly divided into four sects: Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, and Austrians. What all have in common is substandard scientific abilities. Generally speaking, the four approaches are built upon unacceptable premises and therefore violate Aristotle’s first principle of science: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Posterior Analytics)
What are the premises that are accepted by the majority of economists? Krugman put it thus “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point …”. This starting point has to be abandoned because this premises are by no stretch of the imagination certain, true, and primary.
At this critical juncture, the economist has to make up his mind: either to defend the indefensible beliefs of one of the four sects or to replace the foundational assumptions and to begin in earnest with the overdue reconstruction of the whole theoretical superstructure of economics.