Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 04:04 PM Nov 2015

How Economics Became a Right-Wing Field

Conservatives never include their beloved Economics departments in their denunciations of left-wing academia because what they actually want is the whole of the university to reflect Economics and providing intellectual justifications for greed and the personal predilections of the wealthy. Economics has not always been that way and it’s always had a minority who took a more honest view of the field. Marshall Steinbaum and Bernard Weisberger on the origins of the right-wing take over of the field in the Gilded Age:

Meanwhile, Ely’s economics colleagues were moving in the other direction, and not simply under duress, as Adams had been. University presidents seeking stature for their institutions appealed to rich donors among the period’s Robber Barons, and that appeal was unlikely to be successful when rabble-rousers in the economics department were questioning the foundations of American capitalism, in particular the monopolization and labor exploitation that made the Robber Barons rich in the first place. At the same time, some of the more moderate members of the economics old school were making overtures to moderates in the new, recognizing the threat that manifestly improved scholarship posed to their authority in the field. Also in 1886, Charles Dunbar, the chair of the Harvard department, brought out the first issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, an alternative peer-reviewed channel to the AEA’s Proceedings (now the American Economic Review, to date the leading journal in the field), which was under Ely’s iron grip. His opening essay welcomed the empirics of the AEA’s cohort but denounced any tendency to political or social reform—a direct challenge to Ely.

...

What was lost in the eclipse of radicalism at the AEA? The economic tracts of that era began to enshrine the perfectly competitive market at the center of the intellectual firmament in economics—work then being formalized mathematically overseas by Leon Walras and Alfred Marshall, to be imported to the US by the likes of Clark and Irving Fisher and embellished by their successors in the mid-to-late 20th century. There has always been disagreement within the academic economics establishment, but it has largely adhered to the establishmentarian bent set down in 1892—and won itself great intellectual prestige in so doing. What political involvement there is in the field is almost exclusively on the Right, as attested by recent cases of donor influence on economics departments at Florida State, Kansas, and numerous others, aimed at routing out any challenge to free market orthodoxy. Much more notable than those cases of overt politicization is the broader alliance of economics with the country’s business establishment, in the form of lavishly funded business schools and research programs to the benefit of the field, far and above what’s available to any other discipline.

http://histphil.org/2015/10/19/economics-was-once-radical-then-it-decided-not-to-be/


http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/11/how-economics-became-a-right-wing-field
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Economics Became a Right-Wing Field (Original Post) phantom power Nov 2015 OP
bookmarked for a thorough going-over. . . n/t annabanana Nov 2015 #1
Conservatives are 'economists'? louis-t Nov 2015 #2
kick DJ13 Nov 2015 #3
That was 125 years ago, rogerashton Nov 2015 #4
The axioms that standard economic theory is based on are ludicrous daleo Nov 2015 #5
If chemists adhered to the same level of thinking hifiguy Nov 2015 #7
A perfect illustration of humanity's penchant for collective insanity. ronnie624 Nov 2015 #14
Naomi Klein had a good discussion of the contemporary reasons in Shock Doctrine. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2015 #6
If a serious and unbiased history of this era is written in another hifiguy Nov 2015 #8
+1 n/t lumberjack_jeff Nov 2015 #9
Lots of suffering and misery in Venezuela right now. Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #12
Read The Shock Doctrine hifiguy Nov 2015 #13
Gotta include Martin Feldstein in with that bunch. HughBeaumont Nov 2015 #10
The Galbraiths would agree. Octafish Nov 2015 #11

rogerashton

(3,920 posts)
4. That was 125 years ago,
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 06:16 PM
Nov 2015

and there have been tendencies in both directions since. Keynesian economics, including some fairly radical folks like Joan Robinson and Abba Lerner, were influential enough in 1970 that I remember Paul Samuelson -- a liberal, although very anti-Marxist -- regretting that there were so few conservatives in economics, saying, "In a two-party society we need to have two parties." Well, the conservative economists came in like a rumbling herd for the next 40 years -- but the trend in econ pretty much paralleled the trends in other parts of society. And the lit specialists I know are more conservative than the economists, but that is probably an unrepresentative sample.

daleo

(21,317 posts)
5. The axioms that standard economic theory is based on are ludicrous
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 06:21 PM
Nov 2015

Thus, a preponderance of right wing thinkers currently are in the field.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
7. If chemists adhered to the same level of thinking
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 08:57 PM
Nov 2015

as economists, the phlogiston theory would still be taught.

No matter how much laissez faire fails it cannot ever be questioned.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
14. A perfect illustration of humanity's penchant for collective insanity.
Mon Nov 2, 2015, 02:15 PM
Nov 2015

One must be in complete denial of a number of fundamental scientific principles in order to embrace mainstream economic 'theory'. The fact that so many highly educated people swallow the nonsense, speaks to the effectiveness of cradle-to-grave exposure to ideological propaganda.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
6. Naomi Klein had a good discussion of the contemporary reasons in Shock Doctrine.
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 08:52 PM
Nov 2015

The Chicago School of Economics is ground zero for conservative economists and the veneer of legitimacy they give robber barons.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
8. If a serious and unbiased history of this era is written in another
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 09:00 PM
Nov 2015

fifty or one hundred years, one question will be the hardest to answer: Was Adolf Hitler or Milton Friedman responsible for more needless human suffering and misery.

I'd say Friedman. His zombie followers are still very much on the march, spreading destruction wherever they go.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
10. Gotta include Martin Feldstein in with that bunch.
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 11:32 PM
Nov 2015
Responsible for a whole lotta bad economics and passed that nastiness on to his students and other universities.

Feldstein is an avid advocate of Social Security reform and was a main driving force behind former President George W. Bush's initiative of partial privatization of the Social Security system. Aside from his contributions to the field of public sector economics, he has also authored other important macroeconomics papers. One of his more well-known papers in this field was his investigation with Charles Horioka of investment behavior in various countries. He and Horioka found that in the long run, capital tends to stay in its home country – that is to say, a nation's savings is used to fund its investment opportunities. This has since been known as the "Feldstein–Horioka puzzle".

In 2005, Feldstein was widely considered a leading candidate to succeed chairman Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. This was in part due to his prominence in the Reagan administration and his position as an economic advisor for the Bush presidential campaign. The New York Times wrote an editorial advocating that Bush choose either Feldstein or Ben Bernanke due to their credentials, and the week of the nomination The Economist predicted that the two men had the greatest probability of selection out of the field of candidates.[4] Ultimately, the position went to Bernanke, possibly because Feldstein was a board member of AIG, which announced the same year that it would restate five years of past financial reports by $2.7 billion. Subsequently, AIG suffered a massive financial collapse that played a central role in the worldwide economic crisis of 2007–08 and the ensuing global recession. The firm was rescued only by multiple capital infusions by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, which extended a $182.5 billion line of credit. Although Feldstein was not explicitly linked to the accounting practices in question, he had served as a Director of AIG since 1988. In March 2007, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation announced that one of four 2007 Bradley Prizes to honor outstanding achievement would be awarded to Feldstein.[5] On September 10, 2007, Feldstein announced that he would be stepping down as president of NBER effective June 2008.[6]


Octafish

(55,745 posts)
11. The Galbraiths would agree.
Sun Nov 1, 2015, 11:46 PM
Nov 2015

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- Amb. John Kenneth Galbraith, statesman, economist and father of economists, diplomats, and scholars.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Economics Became a Ri...