At 01:07 PM 11/13/2005, you wrote:
I've observed that the most common (non) argument that I've seen against
heterodox economics is "If mainstream economics is so bad, then why do
most experts follow it?"
I assume alot of you have come across this annoying argument before, and I
am wondering how you reply to it.
Hmm. Two questions:
1) Which aspect of mainstream economics are you dissatisfied with? Micro?
Macro? Econometrics, some applications of which have challenged received
mainstream theories such as rational expectations or the theory of
compensating wage differentials? Game theory, including that used to
challenge fundamental assumptions about the exogeneity of the state and the
rationality of economic actors? Behavioral and experimental economics,
some of which has also challenged basic behavioral assumptions? The
theory of incomplete markets and imperfect information? That part that
identifies significant market failures (and came up with the theory of
second best, mentioned in one of the replies in this thread)? General
equilibrium theory with heterogeneous capital goods, which has been applied
to confirm and extend the Cambridge critique? The mainstream literature on
segmented labor markets? What?
2) Compared to what?
Gil
