But why even bother to question such an established authority? Rolf Dobelli, a Swiss author and entrepreneur, dedicated a chapter in his million-copy bestseller book ‘The Art of Thinking Clearly’ towards the ‘Authority Bias’. He claims that it is unwise to bow to the authorities like we’re all on a conveyor belt if we don’t challenge them when crises like these give us a solid reason to. He also mentions how there are one million trained economists on the planet, and none of them could accurately predict the timing of the financial crisis in 2008. To quote the author, “Never has a group of experts failed so spectacularly”. Further insights from this chapter reveal that authorities survive through the recognition and constantly find ways to reinforce their status. Therefore, we should do our best to challenge them as authorities might be exerting an influence on our reasoning. The claims made in this article are definitely bold, but, before we further investigate the need for a revolution in economics, it is important that the readers make a mental note of this psychological phenomena.

The 2008 crisis was rather a blessing in disguise. It was an important reality check for economists and experts all around the world as it provides the impetus for us to rethink our approach to economics. As JP Bouchaud mentioned in his paper ‘Economics needs a scientific revolution’ (2021), “the financial crisis highlights the crucial need for a change of mindset in economics and financial engineering, that should move away from dogmatic axioms and focus more on data, orders of magnitudes, and plausible arguments”.

It is perhaps unsurprising then that consciousness, and the way that we pattern our thoughts, seem to have much in common with quantum physics. One of the hottest areas in economics, especially since the crisis, has been behavioral economics, which was founded in the 1970s by the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

This represents how studies like physics and psychology combined with economics can result in a new kind of economics that will overturn the most basic assumptions of traditional economics, and point the way to a better, fairer, and more sustainable economy. Classical economics is built on strong assumptions that quickly become axioms: the rationality of economic agents, the invisible hand, and market efficiency. Therefore, unlike physicists, economists are not skeptical of these axioms and models. As Robert Nelson argued in his book, Economics as Religion, the marketplace has been deified.

In reality, A theory is likely to be accepted only if it tells a story that benefits a powerful constituency. Many economists like these just play along with these mistakes in order to get publications and tenure.

According to David Orrell, an applied mathematician, training in economics is actually a liability, and learning only the perspective of an economist is like closing your mind. Ideas that are revitalizing economics come from diverse fields like psychology, network theory, and systems biology which are way beyond the standard economic curriculum. One big area of progress would be how new economists are born, therefore challenging the existing curriculum for economics. An overly formal and dogmatic education in the economic sciences and financial mathematics are part of the problem. Economic curriculums need to include more natural science, as suggested by JP bouchand. He also mentioned how healthy scientific revolutions have not yet taken hold in economics, where ideas have solidified into dogmas that obsess academics as well as decision-makers high up in government agencies and financial institutions. This will be distinctly advantageous as it will allow the new economist to analyze the problems without justifying the previous theories that they’re exposed to early in their career and feel compelled to defend. After all, economics is more than just social science, it’s understanding people, systems, and the nature of the universe.

As Newton once said, modeling the madness of people is more difficult than the motion of planets.

To conclude, Economics, which models itself after 19th-century physics, is clearly due for an update. The revolution in economics happened a century ago. What we need is a recognition of this way of thinking. As Marshall McLuhan wrote in Laws of Media: The New Science (1992): ‘I do not think that philosophers, in general, have yet come to terms with this declaration from quantum physics: the days of the Universe as Mechanism are over.’ Nowhere is that more true than in economics.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store