Wrong on both. Most economists, indeed all "good" economists, are out to find out something, not to show something works. As in any profession, some are there to prove a point, like a scientist trying to find proof of God or evolution, but most economists, like most scientists, would be lookign to find out, not to prove what they want to believe.Originally posted by Kidicious
All economists are out to prove a point. That's why they became eocnomists, and yes neo-classical is the orthodox school.
Yes they do. A perfectly competative market is a construct. It would work in that way, if it existed. Like a triangle behaves as a mathematician shows it would, if that traingle existed. It's a construct.Originally posted by Kidicious
Competitive markets have their place, but it certainly is no law that they always work the way most economists claim they do.
Well, any good economics course would, and all recognised textbooks teach that. We currently use a US micro textbook that's standard across the world (most used, IIRC).Originally posted by Kidicious
And whether or not you were taught that regulation is sometimes needed or not, depends on your teacher, course and textbook.
It's like most biology courses teach evolution. Some will teach intelligent design, but they're generally not the good ones.