Far too many people accept a particular form of economics as given.
Marx himself made this mistake by accepting as fact that capital exploits labour. The only remedy he proposed was the abolishing capital or it's confiscation by a dictatorial majority.
This is a preamble to my proposal that the main article should have sections for other alternatives to neoclassical economics in addition to Keynesianism.
Do I detect an appeal for the adoption of ''relativism'' - the contention that there is no such thing as truth, only beliefs that are conditioned by social influences?
If so I strongly recommend its rejection by CZ. It may be satisfactory to report the theory that the earth is flat but
only in the context of a presentation of the evidence for and against such a belief. I have noticed a tendency among historians to treat all economic theories as equally realistic and to deem it unnecessary to go into their rationale or the evidence on whether they lead to realistic conclusions. I urge CZ economics editors to be wary of the confusion that can create. By all means let us talk about alternatives - but not, for goodness sake, blindfolded to their logical consistency or to the presence or absence of supporting evidence.
~~~~
