Over at the Financial Times, Philip Ball, "consultant editor of Nature", describes neoclassical economics as "baroque fantasies of a peculiar science". He illustrates why "neoclassical idiocies" matter with the Russian transition economy, repeats a thesis developed at length by Philip Mirowski, and references Paul Ormerod. So I find this all very interesting.
I found out about this from a Mark Thoma post, and lots of commentators responded to that post there.
Update: Another Mark Thoma post references a supposed response from David Altig to Philip Ball. Philip Ball has his own blog, on which he responds to letters to the Financial Times. Mark Thoma has even more.
1 year ago