The current state of Economics is very intriguing – the so-called Neoclassical Economics (which, however, has nothing to do nor is a 2.0 version of Classic Economics), the dominant and mainstream school of thought, has achieved very little success in predicting and solving economical worldwide crises. The 2008 crash was a clear example of this state of affairs. Super popular movies like “The Big Short”, which depicted (among other things) the short falling of economical predictions, portrayed the ones who saw the ’08 crisis coming as a sort of savant geniuses or extremely lucky people. It seems that there were not any in-between. Even if movies don’t actively contribute to a science-grounded discussion, they, however, give us a glimpse of what the main popular opinion on a particular topic is. The conclusion, in this case, couldn’t be clearer – people are not satisfied with Economics as a Science. Why is that the case?

Nowadays, mainstream higher education involves a set of subjects, like Macro- or Micro- economics, whose underpinned methodology appears as unchallengeable. If you take a closer look, specifically at subjects that entail behaviour modelling (even if in a sort of disguised fashion), you will undoubtedly find the Neoclassical approach – a deductivist and mathematical oriented way of thinking, obsessed with artificial equilibriums that are achieved by representing human behaviour as curves. The term “obsessed” is not being used to distort the reader’s judgment on the topic – any regular student, I’m sure, will confirm this. 

Since the Newtonian revolution, mathematics has flooded almost any Science you can think of – the predictive nature of deductivist thinking remains a very interesting feature to many. Newton’s contribute led to a deep understanding of the Laws of Nature. These “Laws” are descriptive and detailed propositions that explain the way natural structures work (the laws of gravity entail the relation of bodies with mass to gravitational forces, which is universal and transfactual; this means that a rock doesn’t have to necessarily be falling for you to know that it is constantly under the force of gravity). Separating these structures from randomized events is the key to truly understand reality. The method of dissecting events and understanding the different structures that are in play is a profound and visceral approach to comprehend the world we live in – it demands that the scientist finds causes to different manifestations of affairs, and finding those causes will eventually lead to the understanding of reality itself.

When it comes to Economics, however, this approach is heavily distorted and tilted towards abstraction. Mainstream models associate events to some “sort” of empirical regularities (“under z conditions, whenever x happens, y follows every time”). This apparently necessary setting has profound effects on the way the individual behaviour is analysed. For a model to mathematically represent behaviour, the behaviour itself needs to be simplified. The degree to which this simplification happens is, however, something to be concerned with. Renowned authors like Tony Lawson (which I’ve intensely drawn upon to write this article) argue that in mainstream economics this process occurs with such intensity that, in the end, the model isn’t a simplified version of reality – it’s a sort of new reality itself, so far away from actual Human behaviour that it is hard to understand how one could find it useful for any purpose at all. The problem, then, resides in the method Economists choose to use when making Science.

This is where I believe the discussion needs to have well-understood boundaries. When the Neoclassical approach is discussed, one should keep in mind that a truly intelligent and scientific argument is not trying to prove that right-wing or left-wing ideologies are more or less correct – disliking the Neoclassical approach has nothing to do with ideology (Economics, as a Science, shouldn’t be normative at all). With the COVID-19 outbreak, there has been a lot of loose commentaries floating around, especially on social media, regarding the viability of Neoclassical Economics (or, in this case, its lack of). Those commentaries usually come from impulsive and un-grounded thoughts, which at their root constitute a disguised way of criticising the existence of relatively free markets. This, I believe, is not an honest way of discussion. Being for or against Neoclassical economics doesn’t necessarily demand that one is a right- or left-wing supporter. People have the right to express their political preferences in whatever way they choose. However, when they try to deliberately and dishonestly mix it with Science, their opinion no longer is a mere circumstantial stance – it’s a threat.

Albeit having its shortcomings, we must not forget, especially in this ongoing pandemic, that markets play a very important role in our lives. Even if they need reforms and are imperfect, and even if they have failed us, they are still a very powerful tool for societal and scientific advancements. Modern-day society faces a series of challenges. This has always been the case, and it will continue to be forever on. From environmental issues to wealth inequality and deadly diseases, there’s still a lot to be solved. Nevertheless, regardless of how important those issues are (and they certainly are), their existence must not create the illusion that our capitalistic democracies are fundamentally flawed and useless. That is, in my opinion, a very dangerous (and reflexive of a rather simplistic mind) thought to harvest. The fact that pressing problems exist does not prove anything. The meta-problem (the problem that problems exist) is an elementary part of being Human. Our conscious minds bound us to the threats that challenge our existence, and that is the case in a communist, socialist or capitalist society. We can (and must), however, criticize our actions towards problems. But for that to be accomplished, we must first define the boundaries of scientific discussion. We will always be influenced by our ideologies but, even with that being true, we can, and must, try to refine our contributions.

If the reader endured my writings up to this point, I’m assuming that, firstly, the reader knows how to read, from which I infer that the reader is a Human Being. As such, one would imagine that the reader knows that its actions are often not rational, nor do they have any sort of mathematical foundation to them. In addition, the readers’ actions are intertwined with other people, in a set of events that only happen because those relations exist in the first place. Thus, the reader is not an atomistic agent and does not exist in a state of separation in relation to others. If you find yourself agreeing, you are on the path to question the Neoclassical approach, regardless of what your political stance is.