Simon Wren-Lewis is a professor of Economic Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. Below is a brief summary and what I thought about his recent blog post: Attacking economics is a diversionary tactic.
Simon Wren-Lewis’s preliminary thoughts explain that the financial crisis in the UK was a result of the loss of financial assets, specifically in the shares of the US subprime market due to the housing market collapse in 2008. Similar to Roger Farmer, Wren-Lewis critiques mainstream macroeconomists and their exclusion of the financial sectors and the leverage it has in the macroeconomy. Dramatic increases in bank capital requirements are proposed as a viable solution to future banking crises but Wren-Lewis tells us that banking lobbies are too powerful and that there is a lack of consensus between policymakers and economists.
He criticizes both sides of heterodox economists, neoliberals & right-wing. He calls the neoliberal idea economics bowdlerized and the right-wings to be in denial and politically biased.
There seems to be a relatively positive outlook on economists in general throughout the blog post. Wren-Lewis expands on the idea that economists do far more good for the macroeconomy than bad. He explains that the wrong predictions of a few economists shouldn’t reflect the success of the others. “Attacking economists over Brexit is designed to discredit those who point out awkward and uncomfortable truths” (Wren-Lewis).
I agree with Wren-Lewis on a lot of the points he made. I believe that most macroeconomic and financial inefficiencies are the result of political and social constraints. To a certain degree, more trust must be placed in economists in executive positions. We should acknowledged success as much as failure, but also strive for fundamental progression.