I find myself nodding in agreement with Tom Palley when he writes "Jamie ... is especially light on the economics profession." Economists enable the predators. Some years ago disaffected graduate students at the Sorbonne coined the term "Post-Autistic Economics." Psychiatrists define autism as "a pervasive developmental disorder of children, characterized by impaired communication, excessive rigidity, and emotional detachment." Sounds like economics to me.

Each year over a million undergraduates enroll in introductory courses in micro and macro economics. The price of a passing grade is submission to a semester's worth of infomercials touting the "free market." College economics instructors are every bit as clever as Madison Avenue. Today the bulk of instruction in economics takes place in the nation's business schools where professors enjoy the inflated salaries accorded those entrusted with the important task of instructing the young in the finer points of predation.

Introductory economics textbooks are dedicated to the proposition that all markets are created equal. No distinctions need be made between worker's labor, lobster, football players, or private jets. How convenient.

Poverty? No worries, income distribution reflects productivity at the margin. Underdevelopment? Not a problem. Growth follows comparative advantage. Beware deficits. They crowd out private investment. Avoid labor unions, minimum wages, and environmental regulations. They distort markets. Full employment policies? Don't need them. Eternal vigilance is the price of ... stable prices. Thank god for the FED.

In an earlier post Jamie used the example of Airbus and Boeing to point out that consumer choice has little to do with the types of planes in which we fly. Students choose between economics textbooks the same way consumers choose between Boeing and Airbus. They don't. Professors, not students, choose textbooks. Every year a parade of NEW! IMPROVED! texts--each with its inevitable supporting case of test banks, overheads, and study guides. Product differentiation hides the mind numbing sameness.

Distinguished members of the profession continue to raise important criticisms of graduate training in economics. How fair is it to lament the state of affairs in graduate school while pushing the undergraduate status quo? The last time I checked the introductory texts by Krugman and Stiglitz were indistinguishable from the rest. Economic education remains wedded to the orthodoxy, even as high prestige economists publish dissenting views on op-ed pages, in best-selling books, and public lectures.

The intellectual atmosphere in the profession is stifling. Change is not in the air. Economists with views outside the mainstream are excluded from the graduate programs. Dissenters are shunted into undergraduate economics departments. Professional quarantine ensures purity.

I spent the better part of fifteen years tilting at this windmill. The result was nil. Can economics be rescued? Sure. The market will do it.