I know that I have been promising a resumption of this blog for some time now. I've been a bit busy with some other endeavors, but I have resumed my economic reading. Of all things, the current presidential campaign cycle, and Ron Paul's emphasis on monetary policy issues, has motivated it. I find that amusing because I was never all that interested in macroeconomics. My undergraduate education was focused on micro theory and had I pursued the Ph.D. I had thought about back then, it would have been in the application of cognitive science to economics, a clear micro-economic focus.
But I haven't picked up with Small Is Beautiful just yet. I've been reading another book recently, Robert Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. The edition I have is a bit old. I bought it sometime back in '94 or '95. It is a wonderful book and a great introduction to the lives and ideas of some of the most influential economists of history. You would be surprised how few undergraduate economic programs expose students to the writings and original thought of these economists. While this is a popular introduction, it is a great starting spot and is wonderfully written.
Some have critiqued it for its omissions (famous Austrian or Chicago school economists, for example) and for hints of an author bias towards socialism. I think the critiques are a bit over drawn. Only so much can be accomplished in a book like this and hints of the author's leanings are subtle.
What I have found most striking is how differently these economists approached the world than today's. These economists looked at the world and sought in their economic work to try and explain what they saw. It was their observation of the world that led to their sweeping explanations through economics. They certainly made mistakes, but they identified some remarkable things. (We often forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants and that many things we take for granted today were novel for them.) However, what strikes me the most about this is that the object of their study came first.
Today's economists also offer up broad and sweeping explanations through economics of the world around them. But they do it in reverse. The method -- utilitarian maximization and keynesian economics -- is pre-determined and then brought to bear on the object of study.
It is striking what a difference this makes. Both are intelligent, but the earlier economists are fresh and philosophical while the later ones are technical and vocational. I think that is what I find to be the most apt description of the difference. The early economists were philosophical in their training and nature. Today's economists appear to be technicians.
I didn't realize you had a blog on this interesting topic. Given our current crisis, I've been thinking, I need to learn more about economics. I took a macroeconomics course in college and found it fascinating. I'll be looking in.
Posted by: clairity | January 24, 2008 at 05:06 AM