Public trust in economists
from Lars Syll
People are obviously not so impressed by the “queen of the social sciences”. And rightly so. Mainstream economics today is more like an ideological-religious conviction than a realist and relevant social science that people can trust for making their lives or societies better.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
WEA Books
“a conceivably seminal contribution to this debate on economic systems and their place in human and natural systems.” – Steve Keen

“Some of his insights will no doubt become the key building blocks of the new economics the world needs so desperately today.” – Richard Koo

“This remarkable volume presents the full range of opinions on MMT, from its enthusiastic proponents to its severest critics” – John King

Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- The Collapse of the India’s creative Industries
- Economics Textbooks
- Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Beveridge Curves - Covid edition
- In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Thinking like an Economist?
- Gödel and the limits of mathematics
- Things to consider when reading Mankiw 9th ed. Chapter 1: Ten Principles of Economics
- World population graph: past, present, and future
- Can you think of something snappier than “Understanding the Economy – A Learning System”?
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
- Romar Correa on The Collapse of the India’s creative Industries
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Romar Correa on Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Garrett Connelly on Thinking like an Economist?
- bruceolsen on Thinking like an Economist?
- evidencebasedeconomics on Thinking like an Economist?
- Charles Broming on Thinking like an Economist?
- Romar Correa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Steve Hummel on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- bruceolsen on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- yoshinorishiozawa on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- John deChadenedes on Economics Textbooks
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
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- 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)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- 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)
Thanks for this rather realistic picture. But since when did the dismal science gain royal status?
Paul Samuelson.
How about public trust in pollsters?
I, as an historian, have been telling you economists to trust my work for 10 tears on this blog. Result, zero comment.
There’s nothing like the reality inverting and problem resolving effects of a paradigm change in a body of knowledge….to re-establish trust in it and its professionals.
See my comment on this theme:
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/what-is-wrong-with-mainstream-economics/#comment-161963
It’s no more a science than astrology or reading chicken guts. You just have fancy computers and impressive looking formulae and even have your own ‘Nobel Prize’ for whoever comes up with the most unfathomable new theorem that is, secretly, meaningless to everyone.
As with politicians, the public can see you have no clothes, so the YouGov poll probably surprises nobody but economists.
Economics is a discipline without discipline and a tool that provides nothing in return for its use that is of benefit to the community. In the present day many politicians share these faults. But at least they provide a benefit as the butt of millions of jokes. Economists are generally too scary to be the butt of jokes. They actually believe the form they give to economic life is the only form it can or should take. That’s authoritarianism no matter how you slice it. And they have lots of powerful friends in high places who can make this “perfect” (to borrow Donald Trump’s word) economy the only economy.