What's Wrong With Neoclassical Economics
Pemanasan lagi! Hantam kromo lagi bleh!
---
Dating back to the days of Adam Smith, economists used to incorporate ethics, literature and philosophy into their analysis. But these days, Smith’s intellectual offspring have the idea that economics is a physical rather than a social science that has nothing to learn from other disciplines. They cling to the notion that their models are not tainted by the subjectivity that confuses other social sciences. Chicago School affiliate George Stigler once scornfully remarked that “without mathematics, we’d be reduced to the caviling of sociologists and the like.” The 1969 introduction of the Nobel prize in economics – which Stigler won in 1982 – seems to have fueled these delusions of grandeur.
Critics of neoclassical economics chuckle at the the idea that its precepts can withstand the rigor of the scientific process. They argue that Homo economicus – the theoretical self-interested ‘everyman’ that economists base their analyses on – is a misrepresentation of human nature. The model does not account for structural factors and altruism, and assumes rather ambitiously that peoples’ choices are guided by perfect rationality.
The reliability of this and other neoclassical economic models would be irrelevant to the wider world if the prescriptions of Stigler and his ilk were confined to the halls of academia. But the Chicago School had an enormous influence on governments and helped set the tone for the era of fervent free-enterprise boosterism, market liberalization and privatization that swept the globe during the 1980s and 1990s. Their thinking has also helped shape the International Monetary Fund and World Bank directives that have only managed to widen the gap between the rich and poor.
The physical environment has also suffered under neoclassical economic orthodoxy. Since economists treat land like any other form of capital, they often see it as expendable and easily substitutable. When land and resources were plentiful, the environmental implications of this view were not immediately evident. But with the economy so much bigger than it was in Smith’s day, the failure to measure the impact of economic activity on the environment is devastating. Meanwhile, economists show their disregard for nature with comments like those of Nobel laureate Robert Solow who stated, “if it is very easy to substitute other factors for natural resources, then there is in principle no ‘problem.’ The world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe.”
Solow’s outlook epitomizes old-school neoclassical thinking, but the ivory tower he and his cohort sit in is ripe for demolition. A new paradigm is waiting in the wings, one that values nature flows and money flows equally. One that addresses the social and environmental costs of the current model. One that calls for limits to growth and more comprehensive ways of measuring progress. A global economic collapse might be needed to facilitate this paradigm shift, but economics students shouldn’t underestimate their ability to force the change themselves. University campuses have an enormous capacity for agitation. The time for revolution is now.
(uncompromisingly taken from adbusters.org)
---
Mungkin benar kata Fredreich Nietschze jika Tuhan telah mati.
Betapapun kondisi masyarakat dunia entah dari belahan maju
maupun yang terbelakang menjadi bagian dari New World Order
yang dicetuskan Yahudi dan Imperialis Barat. Kemampuan
menyetir ekonomi dunia tak diragukan lagi adalah bagian dari
konspirasi global terhadap penguasaan sumber-sumber hajat
orang banyak seperti "War For Oil" yang baru saja terjadi di Irak.
Atau konsep bekerja demi uang dan kekosongan.
Uang atau doku atau duit memang segalanya saat ini.
Dengan melihat atau memenangkan uang dalam mimpi kita
adalah bentuk kesuksesan dan kemakmuran yang bisa kita raih.
Uang memang berkata atas itu semua, dan kita yakini secara
membabibuta. Buas. Tanpa kendali. Mimpi atas uang, membuat kita
berperilaku bengis terhadap cinta dan kisah seputar itu yang
seringkali melukiskan seksualitas dan kekuasaan.
Pada kasus tertentu, pencarian uang merupakan bentuk pencarian
terhadap cinta dan kekuasaan yang terbeli. Kekurangan uang bisa
berarti kesedihan yang mendalam, menjadi lemah, ndak pede,
bahkan memaksa kita harus menghentikan langkah. Bermimpi
mampu memberikan uang akan sama artinya dengan mampu
memberi cinta. Sebaliknya, jika kita tidak menerima uang akan
sama buruknya dengan dilecehkan dan disia-siakan. Begitu juga
jika kita tidak mempunyai uang, kita akan merasakan kehidupan pun
berhenti, ketakutan akan kehilangan tempat di dunia pun muncul,
alias mati. Efek samping yang akut lagi adalah, jika kita mencuri
uang kita akan dihantui hal-hal yang berbahaya. Lucu bukan?
Dan uang sebagaimana kekerasan adalah bagian dari horror mundi.
Seekor rekan saya, Yudi, mendeskripsikannya secara tepat.
Ah! Saya capek untuk mengatakan nihilisme sekali lagi.
Mending cari alternatif ekonomi yang bersifat bottom-up.
Saya kira lebih bagus pada akhirnya. Paling tidak yang bawah
akan sejajar dengan yang di atas, sama-sama punya peluang.
Decrypted by / n i k k / at 5:01 AM
0 Thoughts You Share:
Post a Comment
<< Home