@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SteveRoth @blair_fix the claim isn’t that economists are stupid. it’s that the forms of (necessary) simplification dominant in economics are shaped by the discipline’s incentives, in order to become the politically dominant, highest prestige form of “social science” discourse, it was incentivized to choose simplifications that flatter the wealthy and powerful. i think that claim accurate, although now (finally) there is some meaningful backlash in the discipline. 1/

@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SteveRoth @blair_fix an analogy to climate science would be the deniers who claim global warming research is motivated by the grants you can get for climate alarm. but that’s a much less persuasive story. given that actual incumbent capital is much more likely to be harmed rather than helped by climate interventions, what would motivate plutocratic purchase of climate alarmism, rather than denialism? 2/

@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SteveRoth @blair_fix we know of lots of incumbent interests that do work to purchase denialist research, and “green” do-gooders are economically tiny by comparison. You have to head towards Davos-Great-Reset conspiracizing to make this kind of claim work for climate. For economics, it’s very straightforward. 3/

@failedLyndonLaRouchite @SteveRoth @blair_fix The discipline bought its way to the top of the prestige and policy-discourse hierarchy by offering an intellectual framework that prestige-setters were willing to endorse, because it legitimates the hierarchy whose apex they occupy. /fin