Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ziggy's avatar

I am not an economist. I used to be a chemist, much more interested in the history of my craft than most of my colleagues. I don't think this made me a better working chemist. But it helped me when the question was: "what is chemistry?" This question is not very important for chemistry. And it has a certain angels-on-pins aspect, especially when you get a bunch of physical chemists in the same room as a bunch of chemical physicists. (Yes, they have their own journals.)

But given the immense institutional prestige and scope of economics and economists, the question "what is economics" is of considerable public importance. And history is very useful in approaching this question.

Expand full comment
Kris's avatar

Thanks, John: your insights are always compelling, especially the point about the neglect of economics' recent history. The profession’s reluctance to engage deeply with its own intellectual trajectory undoubtedly limits its ability to adapt and self-correct.

I’m equally keen to see economists - and experts in other fields, for that matter - step beyond their disciplinary silos. Engaging with history, philosophy and the arts enriches not only analysis but also how ideas are communicated and debated. This broader approach also helps check hubris and ego, while cultivating empathy, which is essential for tackling the complex, human-centred challenges economics ultimately seeks to address.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts