I'm just sharing some thoughts about economics and the current economic crisis, subsequent to reading Joan Robinson's essay entitled "Economics Today", written in 1969.
Joan Robinson argued that economics is a branch of theology, where differences were not based on logic but rather on political judgment and moral values, arguments are judged by conclusions and not consistency, terms are used without definitions and propositions containing merely incantations. The author, in providing a historical account of the development of economics, noted that the reason economics was able to flourish without any substantive content was that there was no need for economics before the Great Depression of 1930s. It was noted that Keynes' theory were considered a new era in economics because at that point, economic theory began to look at real life problems that requires new solutions. However, there again, that era do not last long. Keynes' General Theory was built upon short-period understanding but was then projected for long period application, hence, driving economics back into the theological fantasy.
Robinson when on to illustrates how economics evolved back to be a branch of theology by using mathematics as the tools, without solving the fundamental weakness surrounding various definitions in the economic theory, particularly emphasising the problem of the meaning of "capital". (just to cut the long story short)
Although the essay was written in 1969, I'm just wondering how much economics had evolved since then, and more crucially in which direction.
Is the incapability of economics to predict this current economic crisis an indication of the discipline being in the present state of affairs as what Robinson defined a "branch of theology"?Joan Robinson argued that economics is a branch of theology, where differences were not based on logic but rather on political judgment and moral values, arguments are judged by conclusions and not consistency, terms are used without definitions and propositions containing merely incantations. The author, in providing a historical account of the development of economics, noted that the reason economics was able to flourish without any substantive content was that there was no need for economics before the Great Depression of 1930s. It was noted that Keynes' theory were considered a new era in economics because at that point, economic theory began to look at real life problems that requires new solutions. However, there again, that era do not last long. Keynes' General Theory was built upon short-period understanding but was then projected for long period application, hence, driving economics back into the theological fantasy.
Robinson when on to illustrates how economics evolved back to be a branch of theology by using mathematics as the tools, without solving the fundamental weakness surrounding various definitions in the economic theory, particularly emphasising the problem of the meaning of "capital". (just to cut the long story short)
Although the essay was written in 1969, I'm just wondering how much economics had evolved since then, and more crucially in which direction.
Relating to education, is economics education providing the right skills for economists that are useful to the modern era of knowledge-based economy? If yes, then what exact skills are we talking about.
Again, two questions that worth to ponder about economics and education.
No comments:
Post a Comment