Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 49

But it’s worse than that, actually. There’s method in the madness.
For a puppet, maintaining an authoritative position may be an end; for a puppeteer, that the puppet maintains it is a means to an end. And the puppeteer’s end is that the puppet continues to perform the function the puppeteer put him on stage to perform in the first place.

Apparently, Pensée Unique in Economics does not work: grouping under such label all the mainstream economic schools sharing its foundations despite their apparent divergences, their tools do not identify the real causes and so they do not improve things but either they are uninfluential or, usually, make things even worse.
Are we to dismiss it as a mere attempt not working that nonetheless survives in the absence of better tools? Let’s be serious. How come that the Pensée Unique in Economics is so powerful if it does not work? You mean every stone age is the result of our ignorance alone? Indeed our ignorance is an intensely pursued result, but there’s even more to it than just cultivated ignorance. Werner, for instance, points out, “There is no sound empirical evidence that greater central bank independence leads to lower inflation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that more central bank independence leads to better macroeconomic performance, in terms of higher growth and less unemployment.” Yet, “There are many economists who do claim that more central bank independence is desirable. However, empirical research, based on fieldwork and interviews with central bankers, has indicated that the relationship between the media and central bankers as well as between economists and central bankers may be more problematic than commonly assumed in the economics literature.” Elementary, my dear Watson, isn’t it?

Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics