So I had the real pleasure today of talking to two good friends of mine (who've recently given birth to a beautiful baby girl), currently living in NY but soon to move west-coast side. While they shared a number of wise takes on their own experience at marriage etc., one of the topics we discussed, or should I say, I discussed, was the boy's economics degree. And what I realised is that I'm really disdainful of economists and economics - in a slightly ignorant and fearful way.
The fact is that currently graduate econ programmes seem to be male dominated. This in itself isn't bad, but it lends a certain tone to the department. In addition, as far as I can understand from my discussion with the econ folks, in the US at least, the accepted gospel is that a free market economy is the only successful way to go. There may be variations in what models work better or to what degree to restrict/encourage government intervention, monopolies etc, but the underlying belief is in economic equilibrium, or supply and demand is the true, natural law. But, to me, the inherent problem with supply and demand and the idea of the free market economy is the assumption that all the actors are rational and behaviour is dictated by free-will. [I don't want to espouse the notion that the gender tilt of the discipline is connected to its beliefs - but I can't help but wonder?]
I'm not a Marxist and barely a socialist any longer, and I understand that a controlled market can be limiting. I also openly profess enjoying the benefits of living my whole life within a free market economy. One of the benefits of a market maintaining equilibrium is the power of choice. But, I do have issues with not even questioning the free market and wondering if it, and the system is propagates - capitalism - doesn’t only benefit the few and hurt the majority.
Since the fall of the USSR, we've swung from having a bi-polar world models to out and out glorification of one model/school of thought only. People say that democracy won when the Berlin Wall fell, but I think the battle was actually between two different styles of economy, and if you look at the USSR and many of its ex-satellite nations today, the only winner has been capitalism. It is the one thing that seems to have taken root in ex-socialist and communist states with ease. Because of the USSR we associate socialism with a pure controlled market state and communism or some version of totalitarianism.
What we seem to find hard acknowledging is that models with different pairings (such as socialism and democracy) can work - granted such a pairing seems to exist on small scale situations - like Sweden and a commune in Oregan. To me capitalism is voracious and is a fundamentally uncaring system - if we add niceties to it, it’s like adding a frilly-collar to a pit bull. The very nature of capitalism is battle for control and the hunger to expand.
This leads me to the fact that econ departments or at least the one here, seem to be lagging behind in other schools of thoughts, many of which are products of post-post-modernism, ecological concerns, globalization and the end of the American dream. One such ne0-school is Participatory Economics. Of course, for such an alternative to what we are used to, to work, means changing our mind-set or attitude towards ownership, wealth, consumption and power. Granted it is, as the Wiki, so rightly puts, "an anarchistic economic vision", but it is a middle of the road attempt.
Having said all the above, my innate dislike of economics as a discipline arises from my grounding as a social scientist and as a child various arts and humanities departments. To me (and this is the irrational, phobic fear I'm determined to overcome), Econ is a social science that hates itself for not being treated with the gravity it thinks it deserves in an increasingly scientific and quantitative world. It’s the social science that sold out first and fastest. So, over the years, it has moved towards becoming more mathematical than some math departments and producing models that seem far removed from research, intuition, or qualitative analysis. In itself this isn’t bad, but in the end the application of economics lies in the social science arena and to have government policies set by people totally untrained to understand nuances or who cannot foresee ahead to a slightly unexpected scenario, is scary. The boy may or may not agree to a degree. We have been warned by a more senior Phd-er that this is a cult. And frankly, those you question the gospel will not reach nirvana.
But isn't that always the case?
Anyway, I'm re-attacking "Small is Beautiful" and my re-reading of various econ models through history in attempt to educate myself further and hopefully keep us balanced and on a more caring path. And to arm myself with some more coherent and logical arguments on why I dislike the current brand of economic thought being perpetuated rather that relying on the old “because they smell bad”.
The fact is that currently graduate econ programmes seem to be male dominated. This in itself isn't bad, but it lends a certain tone to the department. In addition, as far as I can understand from my discussion with the econ folks, in the US at least, the accepted gospel is that a free market economy is the only successful way to go. There may be variations in what models work better or to what degree to restrict/encourage government intervention, monopolies etc, but the underlying belief is in economic equilibrium, or supply and demand is the true, natural law. But, to me, the inherent problem with supply and demand and the idea of the free market economy is the assumption that all the actors are rational and behaviour is dictated by free-will. [I don't want to espouse the notion that the gender tilt of the discipline is connected to its beliefs - but I can't help but wonder?]
I'm not a Marxist and barely a socialist any longer, and I understand that a controlled market can be limiting. I also openly profess enjoying the benefits of living my whole life within a free market economy. One of the benefits of a market maintaining equilibrium is the power of choice. But, I do have issues with not even questioning the free market and wondering if it, and the system is propagates - capitalism - doesn’t only benefit the few and hurt the majority.
Since the fall of the USSR, we've swung from having a bi-polar world models to out and out glorification of one model/school of thought only. People say that democracy won when the Berlin Wall fell, but I think the battle was actually between two different styles of economy, and if you look at the USSR and many of its ex-satellite nations today, the only winner has been capitalism. It is the one thing that seems to have taken root in ex-socialist and communist states with ease. Because of the USSR we associate socialism with a pure controlled market state and communism or some version of totalitarianism.
What we seem to find hard acknowledging is that models with different pairings (such as socialism and democracy) can work - granted such a pairing seems to exist on small scale situations - like Sweden and a commune in Oregan. To me capitalism is voracious and is a fundamentally uncaring system - if we add niceties to it, it’s like adding a frilly-collar to a pit bull. The very nature of capitalism is battle for control and the hunger to expand.
This leads me to the fact that econ departments or at least the one here, seem to be lagging behind in other schools of thoughts, many of which are products of post-post-modernism, ecological concerns, globalization and the end of the American dream. One such ne0-school is Participatory Economics. Of course, for such an alternative to what we are used to, to work, means changing our mind-set or attitude towards ownership, wealth, consumption and power. Granted it is, as the Wiki, so rightly puts, "an anarchistic economic vision", but it is a middle of the road attempt.
Having said all the above, my innate dislike of economics as a discipline arises from my grounding as a social scientist and as a child various arts and humanities departments. To me (and this is the irrational, phobic fear I'm determined to overcome), Econ is a social science that hates itself for not being treated with the gravity it thinks it deserves in an increasingly scientific and quantitative world. It’s the social science that sold out first and fastest. So, over the years, it has moved towards becoming more mathematical than some math departments and producing models that seem far removed from research, intuition, or qualitative analysis. In itself this isn’t bad, but in the end the application of economics lies in the social science arena and to have government policies set by people totally untrained to understand nuances or who cannot foresee ahead to a slightly unexpected scenario, is scary. The boy may or may not agree to a degree. We have been warned by a more senior Phd-er that this is a cult. And frankly, those you question the gospel will not reach nirvana.
But isn't that always the case?
Anyway, I'm re-attacking "Small is Beautiful" and my re-reading of various econ models through history in attempt to educate myself further and hopefully keep us balanced and on a more caring path. And to arm myself with some more coherent and logical arguments on why I dislike the current brand of economic thought being perpetuated rather that relying on the old “because they smell bad”.
No comments:
Post a Comment