- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 2760
"Today's neoclassical economist is an emperor with no clothes who's fooled us all long enough."
Photo: transitionvoice.com
I knew I had seen something good, when I noted the revolt of the students of economics at Manchester University against the hypocrisy, arrogance, and the irrelevance of what they were being taught by their out of touch lecturers, divorced from the real world and real everyday life and values.
This is how in 2013 I commended their timely and valuable action:
“What wonderfully good news! Once again, another group of brave students of economics at a university have risen against the “dismal science” and the madness of the neo-clasical economics, its ways and its teachings.”
Now, three of their founding members, Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins – have set out in full their case for the reform of academic economics and society’s relation with economics more generally, in a recent book, The Econocracy: The perils of leaving economics to experts.
Photo credit: RETEACHING ECONOMICS
“The Econocracy makes three big arguments. First, economics has shoved its way into all aspects of our public life. Flick through any newspaper and you’ll find it is not enough for mental illness to cause suffering, or for people to enjoy paintings: both must have a specific cost or benefit to GDP. It is as if Gradgrind had set up a boutique consultancy, offering mandatory but spurious quantification for any passing cause.
“Second, the economics being pushed is narrow and of recent invention. It sees the economy “as a distinct system that follows a particular, often mechanical logic” and believes this “can be managed using a scientific criteria”. It would not be recognised by Keynes or Marx or Adam Smith.
“In the 1930s, economists began describing the economy as a unitary entity. For decades, Treasury officials produced forecasts in English. That changed only in 1961, when they moved to formal equations and reams of numbers. By the end of the 1970s, 99 organisations were generating projections for the UK economy. Forecasting had become a numerical alchemy: turning base human assumptions and frailty into the marketable gold of rigorous-seeming science.
“By making their discipline all-pervasive, and pretending it is the physics of social science, economists have turned much of our democracy into a no-go zone for the public. This is the authors’ ultimate charge: “We live in a nation divided between a minority who feel they own the language of economics and a majority who don’t.”
“The most devastating evidence in this book concerns what goes into making an economist. The authors analysed 174 economics modules for seven Russell Group universities, making this the most comprehensive curriculum review I know of. Focusing on the exams that undergraduates were asked to prepare for, they found a heavy reliance on multiple choice. The vast bulk of the questions asked students either to describe a model or theory, or to show how economic events could be explained by them. Rarely were they asked to assess the models themselves. In essence, they were being tested on whether they had memorised the catechism and could recite it under invigilation.
“Critical thinking is not necessary to win a top economics degree. Of the core economics papers, only 8% of marks awarded asked for any critical evaluation or independent judgment. At one university, the authors write, 97% of all compulsory modules “entailed no form of critical or independent thinking whatsoever”.
“The high priests of economics still hold power, but they no longer have legitimacy. In proving so resistant to serious reform, they have sent the message to a sceptical public that they are unreformable. Which makes The Econocracy a case study for the question we should all be asking since the crash: how, after all that, have the elites – in Westminster, in the City, in economics – stayed in charge?”-Continue to read
The Econocracy is published by Manchester University. To order a copy click HERE
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 2028
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has seen a surge in popularity since Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, but other dystopian works of fiction are available.
‘Nineteen Eighty-Four is about a particular kind of dystopian state: an authoritarian Stalinist future-Britain.’
Photo: the guardian.com
Here, I wish to offer two books that are, in my view, spot on Why Brexit, Trump and Populism
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 2759
Photo: ndtv.com
Today (8 February 2017), I was reading a very interesting and timely article by George Monbiot in the Guardian. It is all about the failures of politicians, politics, the prevailing economic model, and more, and how the volunteer sector, communities, people everywhere, can come together, taking actions from below, defeating the demagogues and all no-good-doers.
I find Monbiot’s analysis and arguments very convincing on what has gone wrong and on how we may move forward to a better path.
Let me quote a couple of passages from the article:
“Without community, politics is dead. But communities have been scattered like dust in the wind. At work, at home, both practically and imaginatively, we are atomised.
As a result, politics is experienced by many people as an external force: dull and irrelevant at best, oppressive and frightening at worst. It is handed down from above rather than developed from below. There are exceptions – the Sanders and Corbyn campaigns, for instance – but even they seemed shallowly rooted in comparison with the deep foundations of solidarity movements grew from in the past, and may disperse as quickly as they gather.
It is in the powder of shattered communities that anti-politics swirls, raising towering dust-devils of demagoguery and extremism. These tornadoes threaten to tear down whatever social structures still stand.
When people are atomised and afraid, they feel driven to defend their own interests against other people’s. In other words, they are pushed away from intrinsic values such as empathy, connectedness and kindness, and towards extrinsic values such as power, fame and status.”
Yes, I too, believe that, there are millions and millions of people around the world living with total disappointment with the current inhumane and untrustworthy system. Many, tragically, have chosen escapism and have become escapists: some removing themselves totally out of community, alone in loneliness, and some, even more tragically escaping into drugs and alcoholism or virtual fantasy worlds of Brexit, Trump and other forms of populism.
So, the pertinent question is: Who can Heal and Save the World?
Saving the world and making it a better place starts with each of us.
We must transform our lives and values to save our planet
Illustration by Matt Kenyon/Via The Guardian
' In decades to come we must rethink our agriculture, our love of
consumptionand our short-termist priorities.'Susanna Rustin, The Guaedian
The current dominant global model of neo-liberalism has unleashed a savage barbarity and assault on majority of people, communities and societies, creating fear, hopelessness, anxiety, intolerance, xenophobia, mistrust, individualism, selfishness, and more.
What is then a spiritual and ethical path to replace the savage neoliberalism, leading to healing and saving the world?
To my mind, and in my experience, we need, once again to nurture and value community, values-led education, responsible leadership, valuing critical thinking, not twittering all the time, , and being thankful, joyous, and kind, and finally, having faith and confidence that in association with others, we can change the world for better.
We are grateful that our GCGI is a global community of people, with its leadership programme, with the online journal and publications to impart information and encourage critical thinking and exchange, and as a place to share our wisdom, experiences, stories, faith, doubts, fears, hopes and joy, manifesting our friendship to take actions in the interest of the common good.
For this, I am most grateful and give my thanks to all our supporters.
The GCGI: How it began
