New classical macro was and still is many things – an ideological bludgeon against liberals, a showcase for fancy math, a haven for people who want some kind of intellectual purity in a messy world. But it’s also a self-promoting clique.
We like that sly concession to reality.I don’t think this clique could have formed and grown powerful in the first place without the intellectual and ideological foundations. Economics as a discipline being what it is, attacks on Keynesian economics as being inconsistent with rational behavior were bound to get some traction, and the stagflation of the 1970s certainly helped that attack, even if it was less relevant than claimed.
'Animus' toward private consensual exchange--i.e. market behavior--being absent in the post WWII era?Animus against government activism also played a key role, both in motivating the new classical economists themselves and in guaranteeing them external support.
We're on board with that one! For one reason, the fact that Prof. Krugman (and his lovely wife) are still, in their best-selling textbook, peddling a theory of market failure that they (he at least, admitted it was false in 1998 to WSJ reporter Lee Gomes) know to be non-existent. As we put it last year;Once the thing had gotten going, however, I think you understand its dynamics much better if you stop assuming that the motives of the movement’s leaders were pure.
The Krugmans' confidence being in inverse proportion to the evidence they offer for the actual existence of the 'QWERTY problem'.Perhaps we should call it the QWERTY Clique.