nice to see that everyone is grabbing on to the relevant parts of the
original mail here...

The problem the 'perestroikaists' are having, it seems to me, is that they
can agree to openness, but they are not interested in pluralism... In the
sense that they all think their own ideas are great, but they are not so
inclined to listen to the other 'open' scholars... Hopefully that trend can
start changing in economics (as in the ICAPE initiative and others)

I am not sure that econometricians and mathematical economists conspire
against the rest of the lot, it's just that they are also not willing to
listen to others, and they have convinced policy makers, academic funding
agencies (and HES'ers almost) that the most important element of analysis is
a numerical 'definite' answer..

The harsh truth [in my opinion] is that since the early 18th century, or
even mid 17th century, people in positions of power have wanted precise
numerical solutions to vastly complicated problems, to which they can (at
the very least) 'anchor' their policies.

The fact that history, sociology and common sense (surprisingly uncommon in
fact) generally takes up the vast majority of any policy recommendation (or
economic problem) is well known to anyone in policy making, and even to
those in economics, it's just that we have all been convinced that the only
thing that matters is the numerical solution (or statistical 'significance')
at the end of the day.

We might not even need to conspire, but we have to convince each other to
listen first, and then together shout loud enough to be heard...

Best Regards
Benjamin H. Mitra-Kahn