Crucial point-by-point takedown of the dangerous myths peddled by fundamentalist neoclassical economics.
I’m not sure which “fundamentalist neoclassical economists” you’re reading, but a lot of neoclassical economics is in agreement with some of these points.
1. Economics is a social science, not hard science. As told by numerous Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises or F.A. Hayek
2. The noted economists above would agree that economists shouldn’t be proactive. This includes maximizing efficiency. F.A. Hayek’s famous quote:
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
3. Most neoclassical economists would agree that the economy is not a market, and think that government spends way too much. Tyler Cowen thinks so anyway. You might say that you like government spending, but that’s a different argument. Neoclassical economists agree that the economy is not a true market.
4. This point is just wrong. The argument is terrible. Rising prices are definitely caused by a rise in value which can be seen in supply and demand. Interestingly enough, the author is wrong about nobody sounding the alarm about rising prices of homes. Much like Mises and Hayek sounded the alarm right before the Great Depression.
5. Stock manipulation, real estate wealth, etc. is still beneficial unless the money is kept underneath the mattress. Maybe I just don’t understand what exactly the author was trying to say.
6. Monopolies are not necessarily bad. It’s the government granted monopolies that the neoclassical economists and Austrian economists agree are bad.
7. This wages is a muddled discussion. It seems like the author is ONLY talking about AMERICAN low wages so it looks like the problem isn’t low wages in general, he just doesn’t want Americans to be competitive in the labor market.
8. Solyndra, Case in point. Really, though, the reasons why Industrial policy doesn’t work is because the government doesn’t necessarily reflect what the people want. Enter public choice economics and James Buchanan/Gordon Tullock.
9. I don’t know enough about what the tax code to really comment.
10. This is such an ambiguous point that the author doesn’t really even get at. Also, bashing comparative advantage? Really..