Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 32

So far, we may think that Pensée Unique and neoclassical economics are synonimous, but that is not the case: the strategy is more sophisticated. And Werner informs us of its key factors:
First, at the centre of the temple formed by the previously covered neoclassical assumptions there is a sancta sanctorum, and it contains the very few core ones.
Second, the neoclassical school of thought is not the only mainstream school of thought in economics; not only there are also the classical, neoclassical, new classical and real business cycle mainstream schools of thought, not too divergent, but there are even other schools of thought which are more divergent and nonetheless mainstream as well: the Keynesian, monetarist and fiscalist.
Third, regardless of how divergent, all the mainstream schools of thought in economics share that same sancta sanctorum.
Some may call it role playing; a bit like politicians playing right wing vs left wing to distract us from what’s really going on. Isn’t removing the truth from the stage and at the same time clogging that stage with red herrings the most obvious cover−up strategy?
On the other hand, if we find out what’s in the sancta sanctorum of the Pensée Unique in Economics, and shed light on it, that’s likely to get us somewhere.

In Werner’s words, “We can also identify several aspects that they have in common: firstly, they are all based on the deductive methodology, which starts by making assumptions about reality, and then proceeds to build models; secondly, they generally are based on the faith that most markets will be in equilibrium…” (a market is said to be in equilibrium if the economic entities in it, individuals, groups, companies, etc. can adjust their economic relationships freely, without constraints or interference, “where an equilibrium is determined through movements of prices to the level that equalises demand and supply”); “thirdly, they all agree about the link between money and the economy … which forms the fundamental pillar on which they are built; and fourthly, they all do not work – since they are unable to explain events in the ‘real world’, for instance the second largest economy. Since they have in common that they do not seem to work, it stands to reason that their other common features may be part of the problem. We can easily test this, and thereby simultaneously put all mainstream macroeconomic theories on trial, if we test their common foundation, namely their postulated link between money and the economy.”