Probably because they are not talking about truth but about what each of them think will work for the economy. It is only scientific truth that makes people concur in relativistic terms to some degree,  as disagreement in such cases demands an alternative proved truth which refutes the one that exists.

hi 

Daniel kahneman may resolve this problem. 

Thank you very much , David.

Dear David

Thanks a lot for your kind support.

Best regards

Dear David

I found your publication very interesting and useful. I am extremely obliged and thankful to you for this most approriate support.

What David writes is interesting. But this is not the whole story. Indeed, there exist different schools: classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, Schumpeterian, Maltusian, institutional, evolutionary, etc. However, all those schools (at least for certain time periods) have been well accepted, had their journals and public recognition. Other sciences can also have different schools. For example, there is some contradiction between relativity and quantum physics, but they rarely intersect, and do not argue. I found it much less likely to fail some work in physics or mathematics than in economics. The reasons for rejection of article  there might be its stupidity or repetition of some results, but not disagreement with methodology or assumptions, which is often the reason to reject a work in economics. Interestingly, economists from different schools often even do not know each other, but even economists from the same school may quarrel or reject articles of each other. I heard that economics has its origin in law. We know that lawyers are very skilled to "kill" each other - because in the end only one "truth"  is proclaimed to be true at the court. Even if it is not the real truth. Another reason for non-cooperative behaviour of economists (comparing to other scientists) may lie in the tradition of neoclassical economics (that currently dominates, both in education and journals) to consider agents as fully selfish.

Dear Yuri Sir,

You have touched the core of the issue. Rightly, the proclamation of economic laws may be motivated not only by the natural sciences but more by the legal procedures. But it is also said that the law is blind and it reaches blind truths. So, the truth of the economists may also be a ... ... ...

The second thing is that the lawyer/attorney who is the most vocal and well-connected with the jury rule the bench. Good! 

So, there are even better economists but, for the domination of the most powerful ones, the truer truth is hindered most of the way.

Regards

Probably because they are not talking about truth but about what each of them think will work for the economy. It is only scientific truth that makes people concur in relativistic terms to some degree,  as disagreement in such cases demands an alternative proved truth which refutes the one that exists.

Dear George and Dejenie

You are right, sirs. A post-mortem can never cure a dead body. And a part post-mortem is worse than a holistic one. Alas, the economists, most of them, seem to be excellently possessing the expertise in miniaturistic post-mortems with an aim to make sweeping generalisations on the whole body economic.

Regards

May be the economic theories and perspectives they follow.

I think it's because economics, much like psychology, is not an exact science. Any field that depends so heavily on the human reaction to inputs cannot be considered deterministic.

Dear Berhanu and Albert Sirs,

You are raising valid points. 

Thanks and regards

Economics is about making the best choice among competing uses. Considering development as freedom, it is natural for economists choosing one different  perspectives/pathways in the name of development just as people following different religious pathways in the name of God although both development and God have one universal meaning regardless of how we define them.          

Dear Mohhamad, I personally find disagreement healthy for science and for the growth of knowledge and for creating the conditions for paradigm evolution....but that statemet is a little bit bias as it does apply to economists only or the worse....Put two polititians and there are 100 opinions....

However, there are two types of disagreements, a) between holders of old ideas(paradigm dynamics); and b) between holder of old ideas and new ideas(paradigm clash); and both can lead to paradigm shift, under win-win situations or no win-win situations.

Ideas on the dynamics of paradigm shift from the point of view of sustainability can be found as food for thoughts in:

My warm greetings Mohhamad and all;

Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations Under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291274083_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_Under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations

Good book to read : the pursuit of wealth by , Robert  sober , the incredible story of money throughout the ages

Dear Lucio

You always add a new and brilliant angle to the debate with a lot more informed opinion. Thanks, sir.

Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but if economists use indicators to understand reality, is it not likely that the indicators may reflect more than one possible reality?  For example, if I'm monitoring blood pressure as an indicator of human health, and I'm responding to those changes, would a sudden drop in blood pressure require constricting the veins, or introducing more blood?  Well, of course, it depends.

Since our society is pretty damn complex, reducing reality to a single (or even just a handful) indicator is going to be highly problematic.  We might know something is changing, but not have a clue as to the cause or the total effect.  So, we guess, and perhaps guess wildly.  Those that guess right are lauded as experts.  Those that guess wrong are ignored until the next change.

The Black Swan Is Hovering Over Us - Poem by Ali Rahimi

When the black swan arrives,

When the train leaves the station,

And it already has, people, you and I,

We can hear the coming, the coming: clicker clicker…cli cliii.

Black swan comes of nothing,

Out of ignorance, oblivion, recklessness, inertia,

Remember J.F. Kennedy assassination? ,

The black swan is hovering over us,

All wars have been fought over gold,

2008 global financial crisis,

MH37 Malaysian airline went out missing,

Island Diego Garcia American navy base controlled by economic devices?

The black swan is hovering over us,

9/11, two planes crashed into two towers,

The third one collapsed, not hit by any planes,

They still haven’t found the gold,

It vanished, where the heck is it now?

The black swan is hovering over us all

Syrian Crisis, Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Greece,

If you open the eyes of one person, you have done the job,

The world is the country, you are my brother, my sister,

It’s time to wake up, wake up brother, sister,

I fear nothing, fear nothing whatsoever, I ruin fear,

Grab fright by throat, butcher terror, stab it right in the heart,

Rub its nose in the mud,

Yes, fear is the opposite of faith,

Faith is the unseen, the substance of what you hope for,

The black swan is hovering over us,

I put a torch in your hand, you put a torch in her hand,

Light will come, light, light, inspiration and hope,

Criminals who have suppressed Asia, Africa

Shall die a slow lingering painful death,

The black swan is hovering over us,

The tower of Babel, Apartheid,

The system of state-enforced racial segregation,

Crimea and Ukraine, Putin and Arseny Yatseniuk,

The Rise and Fall of Viktor Yanukovych,

The black swan is hovering over us,

Nuclear proliferation under international law? !

Mass genocide, ethnic cleansing and hunger on valentines day? ! ! ,

Political racial repression under Olympics in Russia? ! ! ,

Banning twitter in Turkey? ! !

Start with nothing and end with nothing,

Such is the logic of our birth,

Tough times never last, tough people do,

Unite, the world unite!

The black swan is hovering over us,

The Holocaust, Hiroshima, the Crusade,

Stalin running amok, Fallujah and the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq,

Earthquake and tsunami devastating the Fukushima,

Gender based violence and rape in India,

The black swan is hovering over us,

The Chinese famine, American civil war,

George W. Bush, Saddam, The destruction of Pompeii,

The fall of Constantinople,

Hearken, listen, beware!

The black swan is hovering over us,

Hey you! standing out there wearing that uniform!

History repeats itself,

History has a bizarre uncanny crafty nature of cruelly repeating itself,

and you’ll die a pathetic disgraceful death,

at the hands of those holding the torch of wisdom and insight,

Holding the torch, the torch, the torch,

The black swan is hovering over us.

Dear Rahimi Ali

You are a poet of excellent standards.

'THE BLACK SWAN IS HOVERING OVER US'. 

REALLY... it is hovering.

Regards

Dear Israr

Thanks for the intellectual  supportive attitude you have taken , 

72 of my poems are available on poemhunter:

http://www.poemhunter.com/ali-rahimi/poems/

I really appreciate your views and opinions.

best wishes

a.

Dear Rahimi

You are valuable.

Regards

It might be interesting to read "Why economists disagree", by Ken Cole, Chris Edwards and John Cameron (second edition), and "The fragmented world", by Chris Edwards. They specifically target the question of why economists cannot find a common ground beyond the idea that all of them study value. Their focus is on the fundamental internal logic and tensions of the main schools of economic thought, namely neo-classical (or subjective preferences theory of value), Ricardian (cost of production theory of value) and marxist (abstract labour theory of value). These books also look at associated branches emerging from the different schools and eventually crossing paths (such as, for example, the dependency expressions of dependency theories, imperfect information, and so on). These two books are quite schematic such that what they gain in simplicity and associated clarity they loose in the analysis of complexity. But they are a must read. There is version of the first book (Why economists disagree) in cartoon type, which is useful as a basic introduction to the question. 

Ben Fine et al (eds) Development policy in the XXI century, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Development-Policy-Twenty-First-Century-Post-Washington/dp/0415306183/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454360667&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=fine+washingtn+consensus, offers a very interesting critical debate of the Washington vs Post Washington consensus. The first chapter, Neither the Washington nor the Post Washington Consensus, provides a very good summary of the debates and issues. 

The collection edited by Kwame Sundaran Jomo et all, Development Economics (five volumes) address some of the same questions. Please, follow the links below to two of the most relevant volumes for this debate: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Development-Economics-Economic-Addressed/dp/1842776479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454361110&sr=1-1; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pioneers-Development-Economics-Great-Economists/dp/1842776452/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454361110&sr=1-4.

In their book "the political economy of South Africa: from minerals-energy complex to industrialization", Ben Fine and Zav Rustomjee revisit, in one of the chapters, the debates about linkages, agents and the South East Asian experience, and raise the question of political economy - the political and economic dynamics (or the dynamic relationship between agents and linkages) that motivate/lead to pressures, options, actions and linkages, and whether these can ever be defined, in absolute terms, as successful or not (from whose perspective?).

These are fundamental debates, about the very foundation of the different ways of looking, interrogating and understanding social and economic processes and the way the economy works and develops over time. These debates differ, quite substantially, from disagreements regarding details and degrees of variation within economic schools.

In a way, it is quite healthy that economists disagree. On the other hand, this systematic disagreement is structurally inconsistent with the idea that economics can be sterilised form the perils of contamination from social sciences and history, and become ahistorical as well as a quasi exact science.  

Dear Carlos, we are now living in a world of two main markets, the socio-economic market in new capitalist countries(China and former soviet union states} and in a green market in old capitalist countries, there have been two paradigm shifts recently....

The knowledge base of the old pure economy and of old socialist system have been left behind...and paradigm shift knowledge gaps have been created,.....The red man and the economic man no longer exit, we have now a red economic man vrs a green economic man....

We need to look at those issues now with a different set of mind unless we want to be living in the past....the shift to the green market means the future is here....new market structure....new thinking is needed....

As food for thought I am sharing here these two paper:

The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292361643_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind

Adam Smith Vrs Karl Marx: Stating the Structure and Implications of the Paradigm Clash that Led to the Death of Karl Marx’s World, to the Fall of the Soviet Bloc, and to the Rise of Socially Friendly Capitalism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292359802_Adam_Smith_Vrs_Karl_Marx_Stating_the_Structure_and_Implications_of_the_Paradigm_Clash_that_Led_to_the_Death_of_Karl_Marx%27s_World_to_the_Fall_of_the_Soviet_Bloc_and_to_the_Rise_of_Socially_Friendly_Cap

Wish everyone a nice day.

Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...

Article Adam Smith Vrs Karl Marx: Stating the Structure and Implicat...

Dear Lucio Munoz,

I appreciate and thank you for your comments, However, we still 1) disagree; 2) need to understand why; and 3) close no doors. Over the past half a century or so, we have witnessed many such "...now is the new world and forget about the past..." kind of debate and great discoveries, from the end of history and ideology to the new post industrial, knowledge based societies, flexible specialisation that does away with capitalist relations of production, market socialism, more state, less state, more or less privatization, more or less regulation of the financial markets, the beginning and the end of the third world, an so on (you name it, you will find it). Of course we create new knowledge and societies change in all their dimensions. But these social, economic and political changes still need to be understood in historical perspective, in their political and economic interactions and tensions, and economics is no less political, social and historically specific than before. We disagree about what questions to ask, how to interrogate history, and so on, and the roots of such fundamental disagreements may be the same as before. Capitalism faces many of the same fundamentally similar crisis, some changed by scale and scope, others exacerbated by new expressions of the same problems.

You seem to have a definitive view of the world expressed in your idea that we have two markets and full stop. I don't and I don't see why I should, what purpose would it serve, what advance would it create, how it would help me more than a systematic analysis of complex economic and political interactions. I don't even see how what you said can be developed as an argument, demonstrated or can make a consistent and coherent narrative that is useful, for example, for my own research. I don't mean that the issues you raised have no merit. What I am trying to say is that I don't see why this would be the only or the dominant narrative, how it can be constructed out of the analysis of the tensions and dynamics in the world, and what advances (if any) it would make over and above other existing debates.

In any case, to go back to the original point, this debate shows that we disagree on fundamental issues. Of course, we do not need to agree, ever. Debates should promote discovery and innovation, rather than aiming at finding "the final truth" and, in doing so, reducing the universe to the size of our myopic perspectives. We may disagree about this, and we may never agree, but still we need to understand why if advance in knowledge is our aim. 

Dear Carlos, my apologies if my comment sound disrespectful....

I agree with you, economics has been evolving since Adam Smith, especially over the past hald century as you said, but it has been evolving internally, internal incremental improvements, expanding its supporting knowledge base, but there has not been a paradigm shift  then just internal paradigm dynamics......  

Now there is a paradigm shift, now in old capitalist countries we live under green markets, and green markets are different than traditional markets, this is a fact, and I just wanted to bring to your attention that, but I did not do it respectfully....

I will leave it here Carlos, let's time lead the way.....Have a nice day

My apologies again.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear Lucio and Carlos,

I appreciate that you have pointed out why economists disagree according to your point of view. I also have neoclassical educational background (and Marxist before) but I think that none of them describes the full reality of markets today correctly.

I want to ask a question: Why do we observe so many paradoxes in contemporary economy that cannot be explained by any of those theories? To start with, I will talk about housing price bubble. Carlos should know about Spanish bubble a lot because he is from there. According to neoclassical theory with rational expectations, bubbles should not emerge. This is what I heard from many university professors in Spain in 2002, while journalists tried to convince public about its emergence. As a result of that, I wrote a conference paper (attached) and presented it in Helsinki in 2003 (where it was well accepted) but had no chance to present it in Spain (rejected) and to publish. I have forecasted heavy macroeconomic consequences of late bubble explosion for Spanish economy and wanted to give knowledge to people in order to explode it before without such consequences. It did not happen. Now I saw the movie "The Big Short" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_%28film%29 ) about American traders who created a security on bubble explosion and won money in 2008. But they were unable to convince any powerful institution about ongoing fraud.

The big question is: Do neoclassical theorists inform people about coming crises by constructing correct models? (I believe this should be a goal of any science.) If not, is it because there is fraud inside (I want somebody to reject this crazy thought) or because neoclassical theory is simply unable to do that?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272356140_Dynamics_of_Interest_Rate_and_Spanish_Housing_Markets

Conference Paper Dynamics of Interest Rate and Spanish Housing Markets

Dear Yury,

Thank you for your message and contribution to the debate. First, some clarifications. I am not from Spain. I am Mozambican. And I have not presented my pint of view about why economists disagree - although one can day that previous posts may led the reader to think that I think that economists disagree about the fundamentals of what they study, the value - but I listed, with some brief notation's,  books that discuss why economists disagree.

My line of research develops along the study of social systems of accumulation in historical perspectives, which does not put a high value on neoclassical modeling. As far as I am concerned, there is very little of the real world economics that neoclassical economics predicts or clarifies. So, my guess, if studying Spain - which I never did, although I have red about the bubble because of my line of research elsewhere - is that looking at financialisation of the sistema of accumulation and the role of fictitious capital and speculation in it would help to explore the issues much better than any neoclassical model. Besides, as Há Joon Chang said, why start from a model when we can start from the existing economy. 

Your comment called my interest because of two concept's,  paradoxes and bubble economics. And the reason for that is that I have studied both issues for the Mozambican economy. Unfortunately, most of my papers are written in Portuguese language (the official language in Mozambique) but there are some in English as well. You may wish to have a look at the following paper http://explore.tandfonline.com/uploads/files/transcripts/ROAPE_2014_prize_announcement.pdf (also available from my site at ResearchGate). First, my discussion of Mozambican "paradoxes" states that such "paradoxes" are only apparent, insofar as they are strongly at odds with what mainstream economics would suggest. Hence, I try to explore such "paradoxes" with a single narrative - what could explain all of them and yet make sense in terms of capitalist accumulation - and I have found that looking at social system of accumulation and how capital accumulation takes place in specific historical conditions helps to clarify the issues and eliminate the paradox of the "paradoxes". Second, the bubble economy in Mozambique (discussed in two of my main recent papers, both in Portuguese and for local audiences) can be explained as a direct result of a system of accumulation that aims at the emergence of domestic financial oligarchies depend upon large inflows of private foreign capital, which in turn are associated with expectations about future gains from the minerals-energy complex. In order to feed such expectations the government accrues massive debt. Fast growing public debt and large inflows of narrowly based FDI conspire to generate a bubble based on future expectations. This is exacerbating a speculative financial market, such that financial speculation and financialisation of real assets have become dominant characteristics of the system of accumulation, feeding the bubble and so on and so on, until the bubble explodes or implodes. The article mentioned debates one aspect of this, namely what I call economic porosity, a mechanism by which large inflows of FDI link with and leak to capitalisation of domestic monopolist capital through the expropriation of the state.

Of course, you may strongly disagree with may analysis, and that is fine and healthy. But I am making the point that I found in classical, radical critique of political economy of capitalism very useful references to discuss and clarify critical issues of the Mozambican political economy, which helped me to debunk "paradoxes" and explain the economic porosity, expropriation of the state, the bubble economy, the increasingly narrow productive, employment, trade and investment basis, as well as the extremely low elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to economic growth, which approaches zero as the economy accelerates (even though more than 50% of the population live under the absolute poverty line). 

One interesting issue with regard to Mozambique is that the IMF is particularly concerned with some of the same issues that heterodox economists also are. One of those issues is the meteoric rise of public debt in the last five years, We had an interesting discussion about this and our starting positions were very different - I mean, the reasons we were worried about debt could not be more different. While the IMF was mostly concerned with the fiscal sustainability of the debt path, we were discussing other, more structural and dynamic issues: namely the debt impact on domestic financial markets and structures of investment, production, employment and trade, as well as the debt impact on the budget priorities and social austerity, redistribution, poverty and economic path of accumulation. At the end of a productive day of discussion, the IMF had agreed with us in many of the points (although they could not really understand the issue of social systems of accumulation as such approach could not be more substantially different from their monetarist model). So, here is a case in which we started from different ways of interrogating the some concern, and ended up agreeing on quite a few questions and agreeing to disagree on others. But the open discussion made us all a bit more focused and clear, even if we did not agree of some key issues.

Dear Lucio,

Thank you for your message, and don't worry about that. My main point is that we keep our lines opened so that we can keep generating doubts, interrogate, debate, learn...

have a nice day.

Carlos

Dear Carlos, Yuri, and Lucio

Your comments are very precious to this debate. You have mentioned, if I understand well, two variants of disagreements i.e. the disagreements on the fundamental and disagreements on the non-fundamentals. 

However, if all of you allow me the leave to differ, I feel that we differ because we are not certain what the fundamental are and what they are not.

With best regards

  As a kid....I notes the Roman Catholic believers ,there had money and be trading in the church , so called Protestant ( martin Luther ) believers had no money and no trading going.

Dear Yuri, your argument is valid, and both the structure of the traditional market(T = aBc) and the structure of the financial market(M= Lb = Ipcb) are distorted as they assumed externality neutrality....The traditional market T assumes social and environmental externality neutrality; and only the economy matter; and the financial market M assumes individual savings(p), corporate savings(c) and borrower(b) neutrality only the traditional lending structure(L) and their internal savings(I) matter.  Another type of externality neutrality that I see is that what ever does not fit the model becomes an externality.... Bubblles or crashes in traditional markets and financial markets to me are not surprises as these markets  are set to fail in the long-term by design, but each time they fail somewhere there are big winners....that is the way the market works best.....but the system as a whole moves towards a more unsustainableble position after each crash.......

So Yuri from my point of view sustainability market thinking as one way to look at the same issues from the sustainability angle and you can see possible solutions....My aim is to communicate this view and ideas in a way that the average person can understand them.... 

In the case of the traditional market, just internalizing environmental externalities is not enough for sustainability to take place as it stops being a economy monopoly, but it becomes a eco-economic or green cartel, but it is a step in the right direction, but this requires as to update the previous knowledge base supporting the paradigm left behind and/or new ideas to support the new paradigm as it should be....... in terms of choice structure, paradigm structure and price structure......My goal is this area is to hammer, new market, new thinking....sustainability market is the next step.....from different angles and system thinking...including that we are moving towards sustainability backwards because of those externality assumptions we know know need to be fix to save capitalism.

In the case of the financial markets as long as private savers and corporate savers have no lending rights and borrowers have borrowing choices ending the traditional lending monopoly, there will be crashe....

Sharing here Yuri these as food for thoughts:

Beyond Traditional Financial Market Thinking: How Would An Ideal Structure of Financial Markets Look Like If We Think Outside the Box?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282201673_Beyond_Traditional_Financial_Market_Thinking_How_Would_An_Ideal_Structure_of_Financial_Markets_Look_Like_If_We_Think_Outside_the_Box

Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations Under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291274083_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_Under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations

Article Beyond Traditional Financial Market Thinking: How Would An I...

I think that they do so to defend their doctrine. i.e a keynesian analyst explain her point of view in accordance to what she learned and so does a monetarists...ect. furtheremore, geographical location influences human thinking ( according to Ibn khaldoun social theory). an sub-saharian economists tries to concludes a result which describes best its environment. third, I think that political bollonging of economists also influences their results.

Thus socio-political, even  geographical factors contribute to the desagreement of economists.

Dekkiche, good day.  You may be right at one level, but globalization has changed that for ever  faster in some places, slower in others, but you can no longer have a local niche of knowlege you need to have a knowledge tool kit that applies everywhere in the global economy....the act of globalization happened faster that the closing of the knowlege gap that arises when you move to local/country levels to global level under a distorted economy market.....

It is okay to dedend your views full tide, everybody has the rright to refute, but if there is no way around we should be able to call it quits and adapt to the new reality....if the theory (pure market theory) does not longer matches the practie(green  market) we have a theory-practice inconsistency and Karl Popper(1965) told us that if that is the case we have a problem.....we do throw away the reality or the theory?

Something economiscs like is proof of refutaion either theoretical or by observation and experiment....the global environmental crisis and poverty crisis is what alllowed the greening of the economy......without greening the theory of microeconomics and macroenomics.....it is hard  to argue against that....

Have a nice day Dekkiche.....

Dear Mohammad, good day.  Again here sharing a coming paper as food for thoughts bringing the ideas of perfect markets to perfect green markets::

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market

Wishing a good day to all!

Respectfully yours:

Article Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of...

Mohammad and friends, good day.

I am sharing these articles as food for thoughts, on published and one unpublished

Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start Trying to Solve the Environmental Crisis in 2012 With the Wrong Green Foot? If Yes, How Can This Situation Be Corrected?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305994500_Perfect_Green_Markets_vrs_Dwarf_Green_Markets_Did_We_Start_Trying_to_Solve_the_Environmental_Crisis_in_2012_With_the_Wrong_Green_Foot_If_Yes_How_Can_This_Situation_Be_Corrected

Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam Smith’s Model to Make It Environmentally Friendly and Shift it Towards Green Markets or Is It a Distortion on Top of Another Distortion?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309463581_Is_Environmental_Externality_Management_a_Correction_of_Adam_Smith%27s_Model_to_Make_It_Environmentally_Friendly_and_Shift_it_Towards_Green_Markets_or_Is_It_a_Distortion_on_Top_of_Another_Distortion

Have a nice day

Article Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start ...

Article Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam...

Thanks a lot, Dear Sir.

No one can and should disagree with you for your cause of GREEN GROWTH. Yes, it ought to be INCLUSIVE.

Regards

Mohammad,  I think that the origin of many scientific disagreements is in the existence of many competing schools of knowledge. In economics different schools put different assumptions to their models and do not like those who think differently. And complexity is so high, that rarely econometric model can prove that somebody is completely wrong and other is correct in all cases.

But I agree with you about green growth. Unfortunately for economics, I guess that there is still no well accepted model for it. And, of course, econometrics cannot help us with something that never happened in the past.

Dear friends, here sharing my most recent article which I trust you may find interesting in terms of food for thoughts:

If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to Go: Does This Means the End of Rational Decision Making Thinking or Is This Just a Temporary Block of a Perfect Paradigm Shift to Green Markets?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312092336_If_Going_From_Free_Markets_to_Non-Free_Markets_is_the_Way_to_Go_Does_This_Means_the_End_of_Rational_Decision_Making_Thinking_or_Is_This_Just_a_Temporary_Block_of_a_Perfect_Paradigm_Shift_to_Green_Mark

Article If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to...

Dear Mohammad, sharing here the idea of responsible self-interest: responsibility and development, from general and specific angles, you may find some food for thoughts there I think:

Responsibility and Development Models: Highlighting the Road of General Development Towards Sustainability Using the Increasing Responsibility Framework

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310463093_Responsibility_and_Development_Models_Highlighting_the_Road_of_General_Development_Towards_Sustainability_Using_the_Increasing_Responsibility_Framework

Responsibility and Economic development: Highlighting the Current Road of Capitalism Towards Sustainability Using the Increasing Responsibility Framework

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310831307_Responsibility_and_Economic_development_Highlighting_the_Current_Road_of_Capitalism_Towards_Sustainability_Using_the_Increasing_Responsibility_Framework

Responsibility and Deep Socialism: Highlighting the Current Road of Red Socialism Towards Sustainability Using the Increasing Responsibility Framework

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310831311_Responsibility_and_Deep_Socialism_Highlighting_the_Current_Road_of_Red_Socialism_Towards_Sustainability_Using_the_Increasing_Responsibility_Framework

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Article Responsibility and Development Models: Highlighting the Road...

Article Responsibility and Economic development: Highlighting the Cu...

Article Responsibility and Deep Socialism: Highlighting the Current ...

From my academic stand point i think implementing theories globally is suicidal situation

Seems that discussion is revived after 2 years of silence. My own experience shows that economists really disagree a lot. This results not only in "killing" questions at some seminars, but also in less number of coauthors for a paper. It may be easy to find 1 co-author (mostly not symmetric, like professor- PhD student), but with 3 or more coauthors the efforts spent on arguments are often larger than the benefits. I know people from geology, who have 5-8 authors, distribute the work, do their parts honestly and do not quarrel about other pieces of work. In the end they can publish 10 papers per year, when economists just 1 or 2. The fundamental reason is non-uniqueness of economic laws. There may be dozens of combinations of assumptions that can be applied for any paper on a particular topic. There are also personal differences in valuations of different parts of paper and used methodology.

Yuri, good day.

Notice that in all my publications I am the only author which I have done to invalidate that type of criticism against independent economists. The idea is to make it easier for the reader to contra argue if they disagree or for me to expand to defend ideas shared.

Good day, Lusio. If you can see from my paper list, I am a sole author in about 30-40% of my papers. I have 1 coauthor in another 30-40%, and more in about quarter of papers. It is easier to write a paper with coauthor, if you understand and complement each other. I can do it not with any person, but just with several people.

I don't know why they always disagree among themselves, but it is true. I think that because a lot of their basic knowledge is theoretical and the majority of them did not use the economic models.