Second, I think what we are looking for an adequate explanation of ‘what is’ and not ‘what should be’ because that is what economics should do.
Ritchie insisting that economics should be positive, not normative? He gets something right?
And ain’t this great?
And there is good reason for that. Take a discussion I had in the last week on an academic paper I am writing on tax gap theory. In the course of that work I have changed a definition in national income accounting because what I can see in reality is not explained by available theory. So I am suggesting alternative theory. But as one academic put it to me ‘Can you do that?’. And ‘Is that allowed?’
Sure, you can do that, as long as you explain it, as long as others have a look and think it’s useful and reasonable.
What’s the betting there?