Why economists need to study history

24 May, 2022 at 12:01 | Posted in Economics | 2 Comments



  1. Putin is an obstacle to the West’s goal of dominating and asset-stripping Russia and regime changing Syria and other targets. For that, he is vilified.

    I mean, politicians and the nat sec state will not come out and say, truthfully, “we want to pillage Russia, steal its resources, and immiserate its population, yet again, and Putin won’t let us, and we hate him for that.”

    In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank of New York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property rights, without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to be concerned with the national interest or its own citizens’ well-being looks like. It’s not a pretty picture, is it? But let there be no mistake, in Russia the West has truly been the author of its own misery. And there is no mistake as to who the victims are, i.e. Western, principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens’ whose national legacy was stolen only to be squandered and/or invested in Western real estate and equities markets…..

    …What U.S. policy has wrought across much of the post-cold war landscape is a moral, political and financial abomination based on fraud, theft and deceit. In Russia the results of the Clinton Administration’s policies are the perpetuation of the longest depression of the 20th century in what is increasingly an unpoliced deadly weapons dump, the biggest swindle of national property since Vladimir Lenin muscled the country early in the century and the discrediting of the ideas of free markets and democracy.

    —Anne Williamson in, “How America Built the New Russian Oligarchy.”

    I concur that natural history should be a cornerstone in economics and not bad maths, physics, and more importantly managed histrionics via intrests/networks with an agenda.

  2. That is a splendid submission.

    The challenge here, in my opinion, is not lack of historic studies of economics as a contemporary programme study by students, rather the context of Economic historic study has become ideological, more of selective doctrines instead of holistic view of independent doctrines, expected of a curriculum, which is open to class base analysis by teacher(s) to their students on the reasons why some doctrines emerged, and later got extinguished.

    Taken an in-depth account to the nature of debates and related critiques on doctrines historically, and why so?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.