The history of economic thought as per dominating models is practically tied to official policy-making; the models of the circular economy are still based on linear economic thought, in terms of the accounts of society. In this sense, it is not a real contribution to the progress of economic thought, but a nifty cognitive manoeuvre to save the linear status quo in economic science.

Maybe, Lucio Muñoz these thoughts are of interest to you, with respect to research into economic thought and human progress.

----------

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist. JM Keynes

Dear Stephen, then you could have said that the answer is yes, as what you described there are the characteristics of the BACKWARD DEEP PARADIGM DOUBLE DOWN as it is a move inward from a flawed paradigm to a flawed paradigm, a move that can only work under a break in academic integrity and academic tunneling as it is technically paradigm tunneling.

The reason why I asked the question is that I know there are people that know what is going on as you do, but let things go uncalled,,,,you have seen I guess the coordinated push to move from linear to circular economic thinking, a move from pollution production market to pollution production market, specially as seen in researchgate without those who know calling it out as it is and not allow those promoting the circular ideas to do it in the name of economics as backward paradigm double downs are not science based moves.

For instance, from my point of view, all economists that came after Adam Smith and who did not call attention to the fact that you can not expect economic growth without creating social and economic externalities, yet THEY KEPT SILENT until the WCED 1987 call it WRONG and in need of fixing have contributed to the problem,,,,, KEYNESS knew or should have known too that the original assuptions were wrong so any work or nobel prize based on wrong assumptions has been part of the knowledge that exacerbated the consequences of the original wrong assumptions as they knew or should have known that there was a need to internalize the cost of those externalities, but kept working on addressing those externalities from the outside...in theory and in policy. So following your thinking and quotation, Keynes was among those practical men and / or defunct economists that you imply.

I am working on a series of articles on forward and backward paradigm moves to close the knowledge gap that prevent the average person from understanding those moves, including paradigm shift avoidance moves, in simple terms, coming later this year

Have a nice day

Lucio

2 times yes, dear Lucio Muñoz Yes to your question & yes to the role of 1st Baron Keynes. Do also agree with your evaluation of Adam Smith. Wishing you success (!) with your new research paper series on stagnation and progress of economic thought.

——

https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/home.htm

https://www.eshet.net/

Dear Stephen, thank you for taking the time to write, I sincerely appreciate the interaction we have had through the years, and your positive and forward looking thinking.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio