So much of modern mainstream microeconomics is built on mathematical reasoning based on the so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma.
But, as if to demonstrate the distance from the real world of the reasoning of mainstream economics, no-one had ever tested the Prisoner’s Dilemma on real prisoners.
And when two Hamburg researchers did, what they found confounded the elegant mathematical reasoning relied on by economists.
Not only did the prisoners cooperate far more than the alleged economists’ models say they would, they cooperated far more than students, on whom, to date, the only testing of the models has been done.
Now, in the real world when theories are found wanting they are abandoned for something better. Not so however in mainstream economics.
Irving Fisher, for example, wrote the policy of price stabilisation that helped trigger the Great Depression in which he lost his shirt. Yet Fisher is praised to the skies by today’s leading alleged economists, and his policy of “price stabilisation” has been adopted by virtually every central bank in the world, and is promoted in every mainstream textbook in every one of the world’s macroeconomics classrooms.
Further, the graduates of those modern mainstream macroeconomics classrooms famously failed to see the Global Financial Crisis before it happened, and even months before were talking bollocks bout the “permanent prosperity” their policies had produced—yet today’s textbooks still continue to spout the macroeconomic nonsense of self-induced blindness.
So now that the basis of so much modern mainstream microeconomics is revealed as patent bollocks, do you think any modern mainstream micro-economists will begin re-examining the mistaken foundations of their discipline?
What do you think?
And if they don’t, is there any reason any of them should ever be taken seriously—rather than being taken out and shot for frauds?