Are economists superior to other social scientists?
from Grazia Ietto-Gillies
En route from London to Rome I read The Superiority of Economists by Marion Fourcade, Etienne Ollion and Yann Algan (Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 1: 89-114). https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.29.1.89
Some travels within Italy – to Pisa and Siena – gave me time for musings and reflections about the content of this paper. Move forward a few weeks and back in London I have decided to turn those reflections into clicks and share them . . . read more
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books

follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Chicago economics — nothing but pseudo-scientific cheating
- Keen, Roubini and Baker win Revere Award for Economics
- The big three’s CEOs are ripping off their companies
- Break Up Economics — continued
- What is heterodox economics?
- Rizzo goes for the guild
- There ain’t no libertarians, just politicians who want to give all the money to the rich
- The gross substitution axiom
- Economics is a waste of time
- Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Ilcd on There ain’t no libertarians, just politicians who want to give all the money to the rich
- FROMTINATOTARA on Rethinking public debt
- David Harold Chester on What is heterodox economics?
- David Harold Chester on Rethinking public debt
- metaecongary on What is heterodox economics?
- Dr Keith McNaughton on What is heterodox economics?
- FROMTINATOTARA on Rethinking public debt
- ghholtham on Rethinking public debt
- ghholtham on Rizzo goes for the guild
- David Harold Chester on Rethinking public debt
- ghholtham on Rethinking public debt
- John Hermann on The Chinese threat in critical minerals
- graziaiettogillies on Diverting class warfare into generational warfare
- ghholtham on Casino capitalism
- Meta Capitalism on Cochrane on PRICE-GOUGING
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)

























Humanity could do itself no greater good than outlawing the economics profession as being too dangerous, stupid, and cruel to tolerate one minute longer. What use has Humanity for a ridiculously pseudoscientific pursuit the entire purpose and function of which is to cause people to come into relations of superiority and inferiority with each other? None. None whatsoever – unless Humanity has some use for unspeakable miseries everescalating unto autogenocide.
Economics is the pseudoscientific, genosadistic, antirational pursuit of innumerable ways and means to force human beings into anti-natural relations of superiority and inferiority with one another, and this is the cause of the whole evil – – the evil that now, in our absolutely unique age of highspeed communication and transportation, computers, and the atomic genie let out of the lamp …now means history on repeat on steroids kaboom for the humans and their only habitable planet. All economists have ever done and will ever do is exhaust ingenuity striving to concoct attempted excuses for this or that system designed to force some human beings to be subject to the arbitrary will of others. The economists’ work is the work of causing victims of thieves to be subject to the arbitrary will of the robber – in perpetuity.
Economists worship at the altar of manufacturing and enforcing superiority-inferiority – – when equality is the only moral relationship between human beings.
Were y’all raised by Mothers who gave you plates heaped with delicious foods while your siblings were served one dessicated pea at the same table?? I doubt that – so what explains your immovable devotion to the diabolically self-and-other-harming idea to make sure we’re all forced into relations of superiority and inferiority to each other, eh?? Does somebody go around to university econ departments and business schools casting a darkmagic spell over your wits?? Do they rewire you back to front in school so you’ll always have your recognition of tyranny and liberty opposite the truth? Are you taught to despise life itself? Did you spend your childhoods trying to persuade your parents to love you more give you more than your brother because you are superior to Tommy? Do you just get off on subjecting working families to the arbitrary will of the leisureclass wealthpower giants? Does that turn you on, get your juices running hot? Is it seriously a sexual desire to see people dominating unwilling others sans limits? Are you truly all perverted in some way you might even be blind to? Cecil Rhodes gives you a stiffy, does he? Henry Kissinger and Larry Summers types fire up some primal lust for power over others in economists, do they?
Bah. A pox on all your houses!
The article is profoundly funny. Irony on steroids. A cosmic joke of zenith magnitude. Thanks for the biggest laugh of my life. Y’all are just so…just so…just so PRECIOUS! With you economic wizards at the helm, nobody will ever see the obvious for what it is – that having power over others very effectively murders the morals of the master and very thoroughly degrades the subject – until what we’re left with is the colossal destruction of peace, freedom, safety, prosperity, satisfaction, democratic values, security, ease, fraternity, liberty, happiness – love – and our chance to have a future at all, let alone a quality of life that makes life worth living.
Get rid of the economics profession, Humanity, so we can return to our senses and row our boat back to the safe wharf of justice and to doing what is right and
PASS THE FISH FOR CHRISTSAKE!
WE ARE STARVING, SICK, AND DYING OUT HERE!
What you say is true, but it is a lament rather than an argument. From what I can tell, as an historian preoccupied with the evolution of economics as a discipline since 1900, the economists are incapable of reforming themselves. Nothing reveals this more than this blog; it has good intentions, but it has absolutely no obvious effect on the way economics is integrated into government policies and the institutions of academia. Since nobody can predict the future, we can’t even say if such monumental inability to deal with the real world of economics will end badly for the academic profession.
Ack –
My sentiments precisely – Sack the Economists http://sacktheeconomists.com
I would like for them to be superior, but unfortunately the economists are not even true scientists!
See what Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feyman had to say in his lecture and essay on “Cargo Cult Science”, where he rightly claimed that the economists are pseudo scientists, like those Pacific Islanders who missed the benefits of the American Air Forces on their landing strip after WW2. So these islanders re-constructed all the things that the USAF took away, but made then out of straw and reeds. Control tower and controller with headphones all from straw. Yet the ‘planes did not come!
So why should our countries national progress be able to respond with all these economics reed-men and their straw filled ideas about what to do?