Beg pardon Ritchie?

The Murphmeister pronounces again:

As he argues, strength is in diversity, as  real sciences recognise but economics does not.

You what? No, seriously, where on earth does any even the tiniest teensiest piece of economics argue that diversity is a bad thing?

It\’s certainly not this neo-liberal part of is, that\’s for sure. You know, the one that relies upon markets, everyone doing their own thing, that very diversity, for it to function, is it?

The only monocultures that I can think of, in an economic sense, are the planned economies: you know, that sort of planning that Ritchie wishes to be the planner of but which the rest of us acknowledge has failed?

4 thoughts on “Beg pardon Ritchie?”

  1. While I generally consider Murphy sui generis, he does bear one thing in common with critics of economics generally, that he is breathtakingly ignorant of economics.

  2. Socialism was not even able to provide diversity in shoe handedness if the legends about producing only right foot shoes are true.

  3. What real science says strength is in diversity? Is loam enriched with gravel suddenly stronger than diamonds in the Murphy world view?

  4. Ummm… Convexity in indifference curves, or as my economics lecturers call it “more is better”. Which is a pretty major part of microeconomics and hence any post rational revolutions macro model.

    So, doesn’t economics build in a desire for diversity at a far more fundamental level than any of the “real sciences”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *