[escepticos] La predi

[Pedro J. Hdez]

El día 30 de junio de 2012 17:10, German Perez-Gandaras
<singladura44 en gmail.com> escribió:
>  O sea la publicación en revistas económicas de impacto.
>
> Articulo clarificador de Navarro sobre este tema.
>
> <http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=7466>
>
> "En realidad, la banca controla hoy las revistas económicas de mayor
> renombre en el mundo académico, lo cual rompe con el principio de
> libertad académica, pues trabajos de investigación críticos a la banca
> no aparecen en tales revistas. "
>
> "Las cátedras Fedea son cátedras financiadas por la banca y por
> grandes grupos empresariales, que gozan de grandes recursos y cajas de
> resonancia, frente a los economistas críticos que están en una
> situación claramente discriminada."

Pero en caso de que sea cierto, también debe ser un fenómeno local. En
el libro que estoy leyendo y que es una crítica a la teoría económica
neoclásica, el autor (australiano) sin embargo afirma que en general
es un problema de cómo se enseña la economía en las facultades. Cito.

Why has economics persisted with a theory which has been
comprehensively shown to be unsound? Why, despite the destructive
impact of economic policies, does economics continue to be the toolkit
which politicians and bureaucrats apply to almost all social and
economic issues?
The answer lies in the way economics is taught in the world’s universities.
When I became an academic economist, I realized that very few of my
colleagues had any knowledge of the turbulent streams in economics.
Most were simply dismissive of any attempt to criticize orthodox
thinking, and equally dismissive of any of their peers who showed
tendencies towards unconventional thought.
This was not because these conventional economists were
anti-intellectual – far from it. Even though conventional economics is
flawed, it still takes intellectual muscle to master its principles –
as you will soon discover. Yet still economists refused to consider
any criticisms of economic theory, even when they emanated from other
economists, and met rigorous intellectual standards.
Nor were they ill intentioned – most of them sincerely believed that,
if only people followed the principles of economic theory, the world
would be a better place. For a group of people who espoused a
philosophy of individualistic hedonism, they were remarkably
altruistic in their commitment to what they saw as the common good.
Yet the policies they promoted often seem to non-economists to damage
the fabric of human society, rather than to enhance it.
They also rejected out of hand any suggestion that they were
ideologically motivated. They were scientists, not political
activists. They recommended market solutions, not because they were
personally pro-capitalist, but because economic theory proved that the
market was the best mechanism by which to determine economic issues.
Yet virtually everything they recommended at least appeared to favor
rich over poor, capitalist over worker, privileged over dispossessed.
I came to the conclusion that the reason they displayed such
anti-intellectual, apparently socially destructive, and apparently
ideological behavior lay deeper than any superficial personal
pathologies. Instead, the way in which they had been educated had
given them the behavioral traits of zealots rather than of
dispassionate intellectuals.

saludos

Pedro J.

>
> "Es sorprendente que, a pesar del enorme fracaso de las políticas
> económicas neoliberales, gocen de las plataformas y forums desde donde
> predican el dogma neoliberal que está haciendo tanto taño a las clases
> populares de España."
>
> Muy clarificador también sobre el concepto de costes laborales y su
> relación con la producción.
>
> Os lo recomiendo.
>
> Saludiños
> _______________________________________________
> Escepticos mailing list
> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos



-- 
Pedro J. Hernández
http://ecos.blogalia.com
@ecosdelfuturo