Keith: > Indeed, in my view, most present-day "economists" are not economists at > all, but only econometricists. They attempt to describe and measure the > economy but not to understand it in any fundamental way. All the > "economists" we can think of during, roughly, the last century have been > either econometricists or economic journalists of greater or lesser > brilliance, and have given insights of greater or lesser relevance. None of > them actually got to the root of the matter, least of all Keynes who was > merely a Bloomsbury, quasi-Fabian elitist. > > For real economists, we still have to go back to the geniuses of the > subject, to those who grappled with economics within the context of the > other big issues of the human condition -- of demographics, politics, > trade, disease, cultural differences and so on. They were polymaths more > than merely economists. We have to skip over many "economists" of the last > century who dwelt on, and burnished, one or two facets of the subject and > go back to Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Say . . . all the way to > Aristotle (though there must have been a few before him who have gone > unrecorded). Even though some of the true economists of the past may have > gone wildly wrongly -- wholly or partially -- it is only these, with both a > wide and deep view of economics within the whole field of human activity > who can be called true economists.
Keith, I have a lot of respect for you, but when I read crap like this, it begins to wane pretty quickly! Ed
