There are hardly any (mainstream) economist that will disagree with the claim that perfectly competitive markets lead to the most efficient outcomes. These markets should have no barriers to entry, nor be dominated by any agent or group of agents.
Mainstream economists are also eager to encroach on other fields of study, especially to do the other “lesser” social sciences better than the other social scientists. It would seem, then, only appropriate that they should eagerly apply their ideas to the study of knowledge. A neoclassical perspective on knowledge encourages what many have called a “marketplace of ideas.” This marketplace should have an abundance of competing hypothesis, all critically examined, to produce the best knowledge for our society. And there should be no dominant practitioners, who might exert excessive market power and find us in an inefficient market (of knowledge). Inefficient knowledge would mean that we would not have the best science possible.
But in the current state of economics, there are enormous barriers to entry and the “marketplace of ideas” is hardly competitive. Neoclassical practitioners keep the gate of the profession by controlling the economics departments at the top research universities and the “top” economic journals. Mainstream economists do not take any competing hypothesis critically because they do not even understand the basic ideas of any heterodox economic program, nor do they care to.
This exclusory attitude towards competing hypothesis is contradictory to the tenets of neoclassical economic theory. Any hypothesis that competes with neoclassical economic theory is dismissed as “not economics.” It should then come as no surprise, even the logical conclusion, to the neoclassical economist that the current market for economic knowledge is inefficient. And our society cannot possibly have the best economic science. We can do better.
Economics may be the only science in which non-scientists feel free to dismiss, disrespect and disregard scientists. Newspaper editors, columnists, T.V. personalities and bloggers make uninformed statements about the economy and ridicule those scientists who may disagree.
.
Imagine a Fox News shouter telling a physicist he is an idiot with regard to quantum chromodynamics, or correcting an astronomer regarding the orbit of Titan. Yet, it happens all the time in economics.
.
Economics also may be the only science in which the single, most significant event in modern history (the end of the gold standard) is ignored as though it never happened. The hypotheses of mainstream economists apply perfectly to a pre-1971 world, probably because they either were educated before then, or were taught by professors who themselves were educated before then.
.
Imagine medical doctors ignoring the existence of the virus, together with witch doctors on T.V., and you have economics, today.
.
There is one question no science ever should ignore, but it consistently is ignored, even belittled, in economics. That question is, “What is your evidence?”
And this is why economics today is a religion, not a science.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The problem identified by this article and the previous comment boils down to a lack of independent thought. As the previous comment indicates economics is closer to a religion than a science. My own analytic investigations call into question some of the basic conventional economics principles. The basic failing of the tenets of neoclassical economic theory is that it ignores the subjective nature of valuation except on an occasional ad hoc basis.
Spence, Stiglitz and Akerlof share a Nobel for showing that in the presence of asymmetric information markets break down, Allais wins a Nobel for showing problems with expected utility theory, Kahneman and Tversky win a Nobel for proposing an alternative to expected utility theory, Fogel wins a Nobel for “Time on the Cross”, North wins for a Nobel for showing that institutions matter, Card wins a Clark medal for showing that demand curves slope up, Laibson wins a Clark medal for behavioral economics. What evidence is there that economics does not value new ideas?
Bob, every year Nobels are awarded for new ideas. You can’t win a Nobel unless there is some “newness” to your ideas. I can guarantee with 100% certainty, economics Nobels will be awarded in the future for more new ideas.
.
However, when the basic tenets are faulty, all the new ideas in the world amount to nothing. That is the situation with economics, and that’s what makes it a religion.
.
Widespread concerns about Debt/GDP are so fundamentally wrong, as to make research into demand curves et al seem like the proverbial angels dancing on the head of a pin.
.
Yes, new ideas are well accepted in economics, so long as nobody disturbs the basic (false) beliefs that national debt and deficits are too high. But when the foundation is rotten, the entire structure is rotten, no matter how many new stories you build on it.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell