this really does mean we need to start again if we are to create a new economics
You can – if you should so wish – start a new morals, a new ethics, can define new goals and all that. Go for it.
But given that economics studies – among other methods of dliing so, of course – how to get from here to there a new economics isn’t the point at all.
It works the other way around. So, you define your new goal. The current economics will tell you how you can get there. Or, of course, that you can’t.
All economics systems or philosophies work within a certain set of assumptions. Even Marxism works provided all the assumptions that Karl made were true or remained true.
However, that never happens.
Some people are remarkably unambitious. Why stop at a new economics when you could have a new chemistry or physics?
“we are [going] to create a new economics” equals “do as I say peasant!”
Oh, I think he’s ambitious all right. He intends to abolish a set of Iron Laws Of The Universe and replace them with a new set he finds more agreeable. He may as well try to abolish gravity.
But then, that’s what you’d expect from a ‘political economist’, an oxymoron if ever I saw one.
This tape measure says it’s too far from A to B, I demand a new tape measure.