This blog, like so many others, will primarily be dedicated to criticising mainstream, or neoclassical economic thought, although I will undoubtedly be unable to resist criticising other schools of economics from time to time. There are of course many bloggers and academics criticising mainstream economics, however I believe many of the criticisms I am making are somewhat unique.
I have always found myself attracted to the techniques of mainstream economics but the conclusions of the economics critics known as Post-Keynesians. Having been educated in physics I am attracted to the mathematical methods used by the mainstream. I do not object to many of the assumptions that the mainstream makes as strongly as other critics of economics. However the few errors made by the mainstream mean that most of the conclusions reached by Post-Keynesians are correct.
I intend to start this blog by going through the errors in what is typically taught to undergraduate students, and over time go through how those errors are presented in more advanced teaching, and finally discuss how those errors are still present at the forefront of much of current economics research.
I have wanted to present some of these ideas in academia, but I find myself academically homeless. Post Keynesians and many other critics of economics tend to be somewhat uninterested in fixing mainstream economic thought, seeing it as beyond saving. Thus attempts to pin down exactly where the mainstream went wrong are sometimes seen as uninteresting and a waste of time. My experience with mainstream economists is that they are relatively uninterested in work that challenges the results of the field to such an extent.
One of the reasons I created this blog is because I have an insatiable appetite for quality economics discussion, and I am finding it unusually difficult to satisfy my craving these days. I appreciate any feedback and welcome any discussion of the ideas posted here. I firmly believe that discussion is never a bad thing and that the economics profession would benefit immensely from more dialogue, adversarial or otherwise, between the proponents of different views.