Interessante metatanker i denne artikkelen:
True, after having had their macroeconomics lambasted and having been shown how Minsky's analysis makes sense of what they can't understand, they are often willing to admit that neoclassical macroeconomics is a shambles. No-one, they will say, defends rational expectations anymore. But then they assert: at least neoclassical microeconomics is sound.
This is patently absurd – especially since neoclassical macro was built largely by subverting its "Keynesian" predecessor on the grounds that it "did not have good microfoundations", and then casting macroeconomics as applied neoclassical microeconomics. However, despite this, neoclassicals still cling to the purity of their vision of the utility maximising consumer on one side of the market, and the profit-maximising firm on the other.
But absurd though it may be, it is an echo of what happened when Keynes tried to bring economics into the real world eighty years ago. Led by Hicks, Samuelson and the like, the neoclassicals dragged the profession back into fantasy via their vision of a beautiful microeconomics.
For society’s sake we need to prevent this intellectually reactionary behavior from being repeated after this crisis. A dispassionate analysis of neoclassical microeconomics shows that it is absurd on its own grounds – that, to coin a phrase "neoclassical microeconomics lacks good microeconomic foundations". But the superficial elegance of the theory remains seductive, and when nations have got beyond this crisis, the same seductive superficiality could give rise to a neoclassical resurgence.