Ian Fraser of Q Finance interviewed me last summer on the above subject. The interview is now out.
It's long enough to have its own table of contents, which gives some flavour of what the whole thing is about.
My thanks to Ian for this - and for those on Twitter he's a strongly recommended follow - @Ian_Fraser.
- Current content:Introduction
- Current content:Is there one overarching flaw in how economics, finance, and accountancy are taught?
- Current content:Who else was instrumental in ensuring that this sort of thinking became mainstream?
- Are there any pockets of resistance to the way accountancy and economics are taught?
- When and where did you study, and how do you feel you were taught?
- Prem Sikka (professor of accounting at Essex University) said to me in January 2008 that the very language of accountancy militates against ethical behavior, since to classify labor and pensions as “costs” means that they are seen as a burden rather than a contribution. Do you agree with his argument?
- Is it the accountancy profession that's forcing these views on to the colleges and universities, or is it the other way around?
- Are you suggesting that the Big Four firms sought to reshape how accountancy was practiced and taught solely to reduce their risk of being sued?
- Do the Big Four firms continue to wield massive influence in the way accountancy is taught in the United Kingdom and worldwide?
- So we can't just blame the way accountancy is taught, because it's a systemic problem?
- Didn't we see something along those lines in the film “Inside Job,” which showed that academic economists had become cheerleaders for Wall Street?
- Given the audit failures ahead of the banking crisis, isn't there a desperate need for change?
- Why do you think the underpinnings of market fundamentalism are never even questioned?
- In Gulliver's Travels, the Laputans on their floating island are terribly good at maths, science, music, and technology, but they can't actually make anything that works! Are there parallels with classical economists?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
‘Nerds savant’ as Paul Krugman called those in the shadow banks creating the infallible financial products. Nice account of why their little brothers are all over the accountancy biz.
Neoclassic economists are according to Steve Keen deluded because they ignore the fact that banks are increasing/decreasing the money supply during boom and bust. Without this acceptance it is difficult to predict the effect of creating too much money for asset bubble in housing which along with passing toxic mortgage debts and insurances around the banking system caused the crisis. http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/steve-keen-takes-on-dominant-deluded.html.
Michael Hudson seems to think that these economists ignore the parasitic and rentier effects of the banking system.
http://michael-hudson.com/2012/04/productivity-the-miracle-of-compound-interest-and-poverty/
You say it is assumed by these University teachers that markets are run on rational lines. Today -Thursday Radio 4 16:30 Material World-had an item about a former stock exchange worker, now a neuroscientist who says it’s not, thus confirming your view. I’ve lifted this bit from the BBC website.
‘The hour of dog and wolf’ is a new book by Neuroscientist John Coates. A former Wall Street trader, he argues that financial decision making may owe rather more to the bodies hormonal response to success and stress than prudent financial planning.’
Of course that is true
Economists delude themselves to make their maths work
Not near as bad as politicians…..