Vichy Army:Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense.
Can anyone name one other academic field (that, as a consensus, is taken seriously) where "99%" of it is "bogus and ridiculous nonsense"?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Smart people don't dream of being teachers. It's the people who are left after the talented and competent do else that go into teaching. Subjects like economics don't even have any application outside of teaching. It's just a chain of propaganda. A bunch of people get paid (on someone else's back) to sit around and conjure any figment of the imagination that pleases them. 99% of people in every "discipline", to use an inaccurate word, are like the styrafoam filler in a box of wine glasses. It's the 1% that make all of progress. This is hyperbole, but you get the gist.
For better or for worse, the vast majority of professors at universities will not care about teaching. The majority of economists are universities are pursuing selfish goals of research. This isn't to say there aren't exceptions, and it's somewhat wrongheaded for you to imply that only idiots go into teaching. Plenty of exceedingly intelligent individuals go into teaching with the best of intentions, the opportunity cost being their research career.
Of course the market doesn't provide research, it couldn't. Asymmetric information, increasing marginal returns and positive externalities would all result in a severe suboptimality of results, this isn't to say that the current incentive system is perfect, just that we don't live in a first best world.
As for the disconnect between research and the real world, it's there and it'd be naive to deny it. But just like any other field, the more abstract theoretical work usually ends up being used in more practical applications which makes it more accurate and precise. And practical work has all sorts of policy implications.
That's what they all say. Based on your name alone your posts are 100% predictable, always trying spin your own act like a vacuum cleaner salesman. I've heard it all before. The guy who claimed he had discovered time travel fed the same lines. I'm a man of results, not promises.
you're a weird guy, Ace, a weird guy
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
EconomistInTraining,
Markets do provide research. The positive externalities of reasearch cannot be captured without hiring scientists to do research. If you invent a better airplane, I certainly can't copy you. I don't know nearly enough physics to even try. I need to hire scientists to capture those benefits, and in order to keep them happy and their skills sharp, I need to pay for them to do research (and I certainly won't complain about anything nice they invent for me).
Clearly my posts are so predictable you don't bother reading before you answer. Look, I think it would be minimally respectful if you could answer my posts or just admit that you're not in the mood to debate this. To make it personal as an answer its really quite intellectually dishonest.
To the extent that private actors can capture the returns from private investment they largely do so by using intellectual property rights, which are provided by governments. You're right, however, that certain fields might be able to finance research privately, but the question is do they do the optimal amount of research and what areas is it focused it? I'd say the answer to the first one is and the answer to the second question is that it would be centred around practical research to the detriment of more theoretical research.
To save me the trouble, if you really want the answer go read this.