Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks for responding
However, you still didn't really answer the question.
I've read many books on economics, from a left wing perspective - Marx even. I took my 'macro-economics' class from a top U.S. economist, amazingly enough. He bothered to teach undergrads.
Let me ask you, if you specialized in some aspect of economics that was not useful to the corporations, the present government, or corporations that are 'using' the public university's work, would you get tenure? Working on this 'fee' analysis seems like micro-economics, which is not really what we are talking about here. I know 'academe' is all about 'objectivity' but I know from an 'intimate' knowledge of some academics, if you stray, you might not stay.
The hostility you are hearing is from people who are forced to listen to 'economists' talking about, not fees, but unemployment, inflation, debt, the 'free' market, 'free' trade, taxes, income, class, the WTO, the World "Bank", deregulation, 401Ks, privatization, market credibility, ratings agencies, auditing firms, environmental costs, tax cuts, government 'regulation', social ownership, off-shoring, immigration, social security, etc. etc. etc. ...
...and getting it WRONG nearly ALL the time.
The reason we know this is that these so-called 'scientists' disagree frequently, and in fact, will be on opposite sides of the fence on major issues. In real science, especially proved theories - for instance gravity, evolution and global warming --that doesn't happen.
Economics is not a pure science, unlike your naive contention, but is actually a combination of 'science' and poltics. And it is the 'latter' part that drives people up a wall, because most U.S. economists tend to agree and support the institutions that employ them. And if the institutions are biased, the 'economists' will be too. This is what we have seen our whole life. The economy is, at bottom, a SOCIAL construct, not some stone in the ground.