Is a Little Economics Dangerous?

In a recent article, "What We Learn When We Learn Economics" Christopher Hayes discusses his experience of attending a basic economics course at the University of Chicago taught by Allen Sanderson.

Hayes is respectful of the logic and evidence presented, but in the end argues that economics cannot answer all questions.

This conclusion is actually not as surprising as the author seems to imply -- even to the most ardent defender of the economy way of thinking.  There may in fact be nothing more dangerous than an economist who only knows economics, except perhaps a moral philosopher who knows no economics whatsoever.

Comments

[Rafe Champion]

Surely a very important function of economics from the human perspective is to encourage an ecological approach to decision-making, to look downstream from the point of the decision and see what happens even if it is some way off in time and space. Actually that is my explanation of economic rationalism when crtics say rude things about it. In Australia "economic rationalism" is the label attached to the free trade and deregulation movement of recent times.

Actually you can adopt the same approach to the relationship between economics and neighbouring disciplines like sociology. The idea is to follow the problem where it leads, regardless of discipliniary boundaries. On that topic, good stuff in "Economics and Sociology" ed Richard Swedberg, interviews with 17 men working on the boundary.

[Chris Meisenzahl]

Good post. One thing that I wonder about is that people who would never consider commenting on say physics or chemistry (as they have nor real knowledge of it), have no problem delving into economics.