I'm here in South Florida to attend my niece Annie's wedding. It's so lovely to see everyone. To my delight I have Internet access too:-)

This chart is quite useful. One of the strong points of Buddhist economics, and really heterodox economics of all sorts, is to help us to examine the presumptions we bring to the study of economics. In the Neo-liberal City Journal is a piece, Economics Does Not Lie by Guy Sorman. Sorman argues that Economics now is a science. His argument seems to be that the competition between capitalism and socialism was a sort of empirical experiment and the results are in and the data reveal that socialism sucks, or something like that.

What I don't agree with in Sorman's reasoning is that because recent history might be viewed as a sort of a scientific experiment that economics can be therefore viewed as science. Sorman presents ten propositions that economics as science holds. To me they seem value propositions. One of my great interests, not just in economics, but in the social and behavioral sciences in general, is learning how to deal with value propositions in formal and rigorous ways. It isn't at all clear to me that we currently have ways of talking about and studying qualities and values that we can appropriately call "science."

Consider one of Gorman's essential propositions:

The best measure of a good economy is its growth. Unlike other proposed measures (happiness, for example), economic growth can be determined objectively: it is the rate of increase in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) over a given period.

Growth is good and scientific because growth can be measured objectively. Yikes! Is this really considered good science? Quantitative measures are essential to scientific study of course, but no amount of quantity will ever determine pattern or quality.

I think that a reason that Amartya Sen has contributed so much to the study of economics is that he's straddled differing value systems. He has worked within Western academic settings, but his background provides a contrasting value system. Two perspectives allow a pincer move. Buddhist Economics along with Neoliberal economics provide a way to approach the territory we're paying attention in two directions. The multiple ways of explanation are better in the sense that two heads are better than one. Our underlying assumptions direct our attention to what's really out there. Buddhist Economics can help to correct the blind spots which result from an attachment to a particular value system.

Guy Sorman confuses ideology with science. The ten propositions he lays out are useful for study, but are not like scientific laws. It seems quite dangerous to imagine his propositions in that way too. I mean dangerous literally. When Neoliberalism as viewed as eternal truth, violence in defense of truth seems justified.