I meet a lot of economists who take issue with my criticisms, & insist economics has changed since the days of Chicago hegemony. Of course in one sense that is true. But this is my problem. 1/
if someone like me writes an essay casting doubt on Neoclassical orthodoxy, or the idea of the maximising individual, the result is always the same: 1. a wolfpack of angry economists descend saying this is outrageous & completely untrue 2. they'll try to delegitimate you 2/
by the latter I mean: look through your book or essay, try to locate some statement they can claim is an "error" (usually really a diff in interpretation) & scream to high heavens you're an ignoramus, not a legitimate scholar, nothing you say should be taken seriously 3/
if, in contrast, someone makes the same statements in a positive way, praises economists for their supposed Chicago orthodoxy, says "economists have shown humans are basically just rational utility maximising machines", THIS NEVER HAPPENS. The economists always let it stand. 4/
the day I see economists form a wolf pack or use delegitimisation tactics to descend on the rightwinger who uses ec theory to justify bad public policy, or general life cynicism, rather than vs the lefty who complains about him, is the day I'll take their claims seriously 5/
