Harvey Mansfield’s piece in our new issue is well worth your time. Professor Mansfield explores the role that the “science” of economics — and social science more generally — may have played in the financial crisis. Warning: This piece includes political philosophy! Here’s Mansfield:
The economists I know are generally, as individuals, sober and cautious, the most respectable of all professors and in their honesty and reliability representing the best in bourgeois virtue. But when they get together as economists, they give way to boyish irrational exuberance over the accomplishments and prospects of economics as a science. What has happened in the last few months should give them pause. It should make them consider the necessity of looking at economics from the outside, at how it looks and behaves as a whole. There’s no way to do this from within economics–no way to formulate an equation that will correctly predict the failure of equations to predict. The idea of prediction itself has to come into question. Prediction is designed to reduce the role of chance in our lives, eliminating unpleasant surprise and replacing it with gratitude and satisfaction. But somehow it doesn’t have this effect.
Economic models, many of which view human beings as walking, talking self-interest calculators, are flawed. Humans have a lot of trouble figuring out what is in their interests, and even more trouble acting on those interests. And most economists’ models of self-interest are incomplete, because economics has little to say about morality. More Mansfield:
Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.
Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.
Get Unlimited Access
›
Already a member? Log in
Cancel anytime.