I don't know why this book, by Joseph C, Davis, isn't cited more often, as it's one of the best on this period. Here is one small bit:
In the spring of 1933 a mock-trial of "the economists" was staged at the London School of Economics, Robert Boothby, M.P. representing "the state of the popular mind," charged the economists with "conspiring to spread mental fog," declaring that they "were unintelligible; that they had in general proved wrong; and that in any case they all disagreed." Four men of high standing (Sir William Beveridge, Sir Arthur Salter, Professor T.E. Gregory, and Hubert Henderson) discussed Boothby's charges without wholly refuting them. It was sagely observed: "Much of the public's distrust of economics arises from the fact that the economist is compelled to act both as physiologist and doctor at once." In fact, economists had not been trained to be "economic doctors" or "social engineers," and very few persons had acquired such competence.
I wonder if anyone will restage such a trial today…
Nah. Move straight to the hanging.
I bet the reason it’s not cited more is because it has a terrible name.
To a depressing degree, many economists and their theories seem to be ammunition for the political ideologues. The theses of economists are used to buttress arguments on both sides.
Doesn’t do much to build credibility for the profession in the eyes of the public. If a majority of people have lost patience with political partisanship, economists should expect to to suffer along with their partisan political allies.
The sniping in economic blogs does not exactly inspire public confidence that the profession knows much at all.
Economists win prizes for abstract argument, seldom for economic forecasting, and .. do prizes actually exist for speaking out against vested interests. Incentive allignment?
“conspiring to spread mental fog” – guilty, guilty, guilty. Just take a look around at how non-economists try to make sense of economists’ writings… not pretty.
“unintelligible” – ditto, eg the confusion over such basic terms as “savings” and “investment”, which has an ordinary English meaning but can mean different things depending on which group of economists you talk to. And this isn’t even getting to the people who talk about “technological shocks”, “preference shocks”…
“they had in general proved wrong” – so how did that Great Moderation turn out? Weren’t financial instruments supposed to shift risk to those who could most bear it?
“and that in any case they all disagreed” – some things never change…
Comments on this entry are closed.