I started this blog in 2010. At the time I was reading very little theoretical economics. I was really just picking through current events and economic commentary, trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Since then I got interested in economic theory and undertook a Masters degree in the subject. In this time I gradually came to think that the only remotely reasonable approach to economics is what is generally known as the Post-Keynesian approach. Although this may make me sound ridiculously partisan, it seemed to me that every other school of thought — marginalist, New Classical, Neo-Keynesian, New Keynesian, Austrian and Marxian — were just crude, out-of-this-world metaphysical systems. Post-Keynesian economics was the only strain of thought that seemed to me remotely practical and applicable to real-world problems.
All the other systems of thought seem to be based on these Big Questions about things which really have no relevance for trying to figure out what is, for example, happening in the macroeconomy or in financial markets or what policies might make peoples’ lives better. But at the same time these doctrines spread a sort of poison in the minds of men. They encourage them think in weird ways and to make claims that would not be out of place in a cult. They give the adherents the characteristic of appearing to believe what “no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years”, as John Maynard Keynes said in a similar context.
At the same time as coming to this realisation I also came to appreciate how important good economic theory is for organising our societies — not to even mention the fact that economic language is, in a very real sense, the language of power and governance today. This meant that not only were these crude metaphysical systems making potentially thoughtful people say completely stupid things, but they were also acting as a significant blockage to human progress. Of course, this blog will not change the culture of metaphysics and garbage that passes for economic debate these days. But at the very least I hope to be able to chronicle the most patently silly absurdities — if for no other reason then at least for my own amusement.