Krugman: GOP party of Beavis & Butthead
Whether Keynesians or not, there are very few economists who would think that the economy to merely be left alone. Certainly there's vigorous debate in the social sciences (as well as the natural sciences, even) but there is a general concensus to intervene. You yourself state there are a "leftist set of assumptions" - like it or not, the great block of economists buy into this "leftist set of assumptions". Go up to all of them and tell them that. I'm not kidding. I'd love to see it.

I'm merely suggesting that most economists support intervention in the economy. Most economists, upon their study of economics, end up Democrats. Why? Because the GOP always panders to "less government intervention" in the economy.

Also, I'd like to know what "assumptions" there are that you claim belong to the left? What has the left "assumed"?
I wasn't using the term in a negative sense. I was thinking of Max Weber's Vocation Lectures, specifically "Science as a Vocation." In it, he claims it is not the role of the sciences (and he uses science in the broad, German Wissenschaft sense) to make judgments about values taken on their own accord, but rather to trace the values to their consequences and reveal where contradictions might lie.

I'd rather not try to gloss over the fundamental assumptions informing leftist thought, the values held, the goals regarded as good, when the end justifies the means, what constitutes legitimacy, and a certain understanding of how things work, but it is out there.
Outline a few of these "assumptions" and I will address them... I'm not particularly sure what a "leftist assumption" looks like, unless you mean anything that disagrees with what the right believes or what Catholics believe must be an assumption made by "leftists".

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)