Dags för en ekonomins reformation - som på Luthers tid.

Neoclassical economics has become an unquestioned belief system and treats those challenging the creed as dangerous

Orden kommer frÃ¥n en artikel i The Guardian där man ifrÃ¥gasätter vÃ¥rt sett att se pÃ¥ och hantera frÃ¥gor om vad som är ekonomiskt. En frÃ¥ga som ligger helt i linje med hur Ã¥rets Nobelpristagare i ämnet uttrycker sig - “Det handlar om människor och inte om människor som räknemaskiner”. Det är dags för en reformation precis som pÃ¥ Luthers tid!

I några teser säger kritiker bland annat:
* “Economics needs a Copernican Revolution, let alone a Reformation. Equilibrium thinking in Economics should go the way of Ptolemaic Epicycles in Astronomy.”
* “The opportunity and the vital necessity to rethink economic models is stimulated by a group of recent manifest failures.  The major threat of climate change and ecological destruction. ...”
* “For too long now the political mainstream has worshipped at the altar of neoliberal economics, as if it’s the only way of doing things…”

Kritikerna har samlat sin syn i 33 teser som de spikat upp på nätet! Där anför de tre grundläggande skäl för sin syn:

First, within economics, an unhealthy intellectual monopoly has developed. The neoclassical perspective overwhelmingly dominates teaching, research, advice to policy, and public debate. Many other perspectives that could provide valuable insights are marginalised and excluded. This is not about one theory being better than another, but the notion that scientific advance only moves ahead with a debate. Within economics, this debate has died.
Second, while neoclassical economics made a contribution historically and is still useful, there is ample opportunity for improvement, debate and learning from other disciplines and perspectives.
Third, mainstream economics appears to have become incapable of self-correction, developing more as a faith than as a science. Too often, when theories and evidence have come into conflict, it is the theories that have been upheld and the evidence that has been discarded.

 

Klandra inte spegeln om Du inte gillar bilden

DÃ¥ och dÃ¥ kommer det kraftig kritik mot de energiscenarier som till exempel IEA publicerar i sina Ã¥rliga skrifter. Som senast den här frÃ¥n en organisation som heter Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) och har skrivit en rapport med det klatschiga namnet “Off Track”.

The International Energy Agency has wrongly guided governments into decisions about oil, gas and coal use that are inconsistent with the long-term climate objectives of the Paris Agreement

Men är det sant? Är det IEA som vilseleder? Så här förklarar IEA hur scenarierna konstrueras (jämför med bild nedan)

- New Policies Scenario of the World Energy Outlook broadly serves as the IEA baseline scenario. It takes account of broad policy commitments and plans that have been announced by countries, including national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and plans to phase out fossil-energy subsidies, even if the measures to implement these commitments have yet to be identified or announced.

- Current Policies Scenario assumes no changes in policies from the mid-point of the year of publication (previously called the Reference Scenario).

- 450 Scenario sets out an energy pathway consistent with the goal of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2°C by limiting concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to around 450 parts per million of CO2.

Två av de scenarier som presenteras är alltså reflexioner av vad som händer i världen och det som är på väg att hända till följd av de beslut som fattats i olika beslutsorgan (länder, samarbetsorganisationer mm). Det är bilder INTE rekommendationer!

Om vi inte gillar det vi ser måste vi kanske rätta till de egna anletsdragen. Men klandra inte spegeln!

 

Läs mer

Månadsindelade arkiv