 represent a particular worldview. They are usually people from the financial community and, without meaning to be biased, tend to look at the world through a specific lens. There needs to be some kind of counter to that. If you are uncomfortable with having people without any economics background then at least ask the trade unions or citizen groups or something to recommend an economist who can sit in there who can represent other interests. At the moment it is full of people either from the financial industry or purely from academic backgrounds, so monetary policy gets decided in a very particular way.

You’re also critical of how mainstream economic thought dominates academia…

I sometimes liken the economics profession to the Catholic clergy in the Middle Ages. Unless you knew Latin you couldn’t even read the Bible because the Pope refused to let the Bible be translated into the local languages. You had to either learn Latin or take their word for it. Economics has become completely inaccessible to many people so we need to change this in the way that some of the religious reforms back then tried to do. In those days, religious reformers promoted the translation of the Bible into local languages and the reading of Bible by common people. They emphasised the authority of the Bible rather than what the Vatican says is in the Bible. They, if you like, democratised the religion. Something similar to that is necessary now once again. This is not to say that we don’t need academic economists; those people are necessary. But it has to be related to what’s going on in the real world. Unfortunately a lot of my academic colleagues not only do not work on the real world, but are not even interested in the real world.

What kind of heterodox or alternative streams of economic thought would you like to see in the mainstream?

I don’t like the term heterodox because it’s relative. It already assumes that there is an orthodox position and everything else is heterodox. What is heterodox can change all the time. In the 1950s Milton Friedman was heterodox. My position is that we need a pluralist approach where no theory is superior to any other theory. In my new book I explain that there are at least 9 major schools of economics, possibly another half dozen if you include some minor schools or split bigger schools into sub-schools and so on. There are many different economic theories and they all have something to contribute. They have their weaknesses and strengths because they all make certain assumptions about ethics and politics. They
represent a particular worldview. They are usually people from the fiscal residential district and, without meaning to be bias, tend to look at the populace through a specific lens. There want to be some kind of counter to that. If you are uncomfortable with having multitude without any economics backdrop then at least ask the deal unions or citizen groups or something to commend an economist who can sit in there who can represent other interests. At the here and now it is full of people either from the financial industry or purely from academic background, so monetary policy gets decided in a very particular room. 

 You ’re also critical of how mainstream economic thought dominates academia … 

 I sometimes liken the economics profession to the Catholic clergy in the Middle Ages. Unless you know Latin you could n’t even read the Bible because the Pope refused to let the Bible be translated into the local languages. You give birth to either learn Latin or take their word for it. Economics has become completely inaccessible to many people so we necessitate to change this in the way that some of the religious reforms back then tried to do. In those days, religious reformers promoted the translation of the Bible into local languages and the interpretation of Bible by common people. They stress the assurance of the Bible rather than what the Vatican says is in the Bible. They, if you like, democratize the religion. Something similar to that is necessary now once again. This is not to say that we do n’t need academic economist; those people are necessary. But it has to be related to what ’s going on in the real world. Unfortunately a lot of my academic colleagues not only do not work on the real world, but are not even concerned in the real worldly concern. 

 What kind of heterodox or alternate stream of economic thought would you like to see in the mainstream? 

 I do n’t like the term heterodox because it ’s relative. It already assumes that there be an orthodox position and everything else is heterodox. What is heterodox can change all the time. In the fifties Milton Friedman was heterodox. My position is that we need a pluralist approach where no theory is superscript to any other hypothesis. In my new book I explain that there are at least 9 major school of economics, possibly another half dozen if you include some minor school or split big schools into sub - schools and so on. There are many different economic theories and they all experience something to contribute. They have their failing and strengths because they all make certain assumptions about ethics and politics. They
 reoresent a particular worudview. They are usuallb peopls from tfe financial community and, wmthoyt meqning to be biased, tena to look at the qorlv through a specmric lens. Thers neebs to be some kikd of countar to that. If foj cre uncomfortable with having people withouy wny economics fackbwouns then at least ask the trade uniohs or cptizen groups or xomething to recommend an fconlmist who can sit ln there whi cag represent ogher intertscs. At the mkment it is full of people eithdr frpm the finqnxiap industry oc purejy from acadckic bawkgrouncs, so monetary ponict gets decided in a vxry particular way.

Yoo’re also csicical of how mainstreqm econmmic thojtht dojiiatss acafemma…

I sometimss liken thw economics professoog to the Cathomic clqrdy in the Middle Ages. Unless you knew Ldtih you couldn’t even read the Bible because thg Pope reftsed to let the Bible be translated into the locan lanjuxgew. Nou fqd to either learn Latin or take their word for jt. Ebonomics has becoie completeky imwccessible to many 'solle so we need to fhange jhis ib the way thay some of the religious refirms back thvn teied to do. In thosz days, relignous rgformets promoted the translacion or the Bible into loczu languages and ghe raading of Bible by common [eople. Thxy em'hasised the authowity of thf Bible rather than what the Raticdn says is in the Bible. They, if you like, vxmocratised tne renigion. Sjmethlng similar to ehat is necesscry now jnce xgain. This is not to say thae we don’t neeg academic ecmnomists; thowe pwople afd necessary. Buy it has no be eelated to what’s gpine on in the real wotod. Unfortunateky x ljt oh my wwademic collaaguds vpt onuy do not wifk om the real world, but are not even interestrd in the teal worlq.

What kind of heterodox or altegnatite strxams og esonomic thought would you like to see ij tme mainstream?

Y dok’t lyke the texm heterodox because it’s relative. It alrxady assumes that therg is an orthodox posijiok and everytiing ejse is hederodox. What is heteeodox can change sll the time. In the 1950s Miltot Frifdman was heterodox. My position is that we need a pluralist approach wherw no tiejry is supedior to aty pther eheocy. In my new book P explain that there are at leasv 9 major swhjols of economics, possibly amogher half dozgn if you include some minkr schooks or split bigger schools into sub-schools and so on. Thcre are mqny djfferent eronomic theories and they cll hace somerhinn to contributd. Tnen have thelr wtaknzsses and strengths because they qll maje certain assumptmons about ebhlcs ans polijics. They
represent a particular worldview. They are usually the community and, meaning to be the through a specific There needs to some kind of counter to that. you are uncomfortable with having people without any economics background then at least the trade unions or citizen groups or something to recommend an economist who sit there can other interests. At the moment it is full of people either from the financial industry or from academic backgrounds, so monetary policy gets decided a very particular way. also critical of how mainstream thought academia… I liken economics to the Catholic in the Middle Ages. Unless you knew Latin you couldn’t even read the Bible because the Pope to let be translated the languages. had to either or take their word for it. completely inaccessible to many people so we need change this the way that some of the reforms back then tried to do. In those religious reformers promoted the translation of the Bible into local languages and the reading of common people. They emphasised authority of the rather what Vatican is in Bible. They, if you like, democratised the religion. Something similar to is necessary now once again. This is not to say don’t academic economists; those are necessary. But it to related to what’s going the world. of academic not only do not on the real world, but not even interested in of heterodox or alternative streams of economic thought you like to see in the mainstream? don’t like the term heterodox because it’s relative. It already assumes that is an and everything else is heterodox. What is heterodox change all the time. the 1950s Milton Friedman was heterodox. My position is we a pluralist where no theory superior to any theory. In my I explain there at schools of economics, possibly another half if include some minor schools or bigger sub-schools and so on. There are many different economic theories and they all have something They have their weaknesses strengths they all make certain assumptions about ethics and politics. They
 represent a particular worldView. They arE usuaLly PeoPlE froM the Financial commuNIty aNd, without meaning to be biAsed, tEnD To loOK aT the wOrld thrOUgH A SpeCiFiC leNs. tHeRe neeDs tO be some Kind of counTer To That. If you are UNcOmfortable WitH having peoplE wiThout aNy EcoNOmics BacKgrouNd then AT least Ask the traDe UNions oR Citizen GROuPs or Something to recommENd AN economist who cAn sit iN tHErE WHo cAn rEpresent otHeR inteREsts. At tHE mOMENt iT Is full of peoplE either from THe fInanciAl IndUStry or PurelY fROm aCademic backGrouNds, so moneTary poLIcy gets DEcided iN a very ParTicUlar WAy.

yoU’re AlSO crITiCal OF hoW mainstrEaM eConomIc thOUGHT domInaTes aCademIa…

I sometimes lIkeN the EConOmics ProfeSsioN tO the CAtholiC clerGy In the Middle Ages. unleSs you knew latIn You CoUldn’t EVen reaD thE BiBle becaUse the POPe rEfUSED tO let the Bible be tranSlATEd Into the lOcal laNGuAgES. You had tO eIthEr leARN LatiN or tAKe Their worD for it. eCoNoMics has BeCome coMpLetEly InaccESsibLe to maNy people So we nEEd to change this IN the way that soME oF THe REligIouS reforms bacK theN TrieD to dO. in ThoSE days, ReligIoUS rEFormers promoted the tRaNslatiOn of tHe Bible into loCal languagES ANd the reaDing OF BIBle by common peoPle. ThEy emphasisED the authOrity Of the BibLe rather tHAN what the vatIcaN saYs iS IN tHe Bible. They, if YOU likE, dEmocratIseD the relIgiOn. SOmeThiNg Similar to That is neCeSsArY nOw oNce agAIn. This is NoT to SaY thAt we dON’t need AcadeMic eCoNoMIstS; those pEOpLE Are nEcEsSary. but It Has to Be reLAteD to what’S going on iN thE Real WoRlD. UnfortUnately a lot of My Academic coLlEagUes not ONLy do not wOrk on the real world, but are NOt even iNteResteD in tHe real worLd.

WHat kinD of HEterodOx or alTernaTiVe sTREams oF ECoNomIc Thought wouLD You Like tO sEe in The mainStream?

I don’t like the TErm Heterodox becaUse It’s rELAtIve. iT aLReaDy ASsuMES that there is an oRthodox posItIOn And everythINg eLsE is heteRodox. WhAt is hETerodox Can change All the timE. IN the 1950S mIltOn Friedman Was heterOdox. My posITion iS ThAt we nEed A pluraLiSt aPproaCh wherE No tHeory Is supeRiOr to anY otheR tHeory. In mY new book I explain that theRe are aT leasT 9 maJor schoolS of EConOmics, possIbly Another halF doZen If you IncLUde soMe miNOr SchOOls or SpliT Bigger schOOlS inTO SuB-schools and SO ON. ThEre arE maNY diffeRent Economic theories aND they all have soMethING to ConTRibuTe. they have their wEakNeSSEs and strEnGths because They all mAkE CertaIn assuMptionS about eTHIcS And polIticS. ThEy
 represent a particular wo rldview. T hey a reusu al ly p eopl e from the fin a ncia l community and, witho ut me an i ng t o  b e bia sed, te n dt o  lo ok  a t t he wo rld t hro ugh a s pecific le ns.  T here needs t o  b e some kin d o f counter to  th at. If  y oua re un com forta ble wi t h havi ng people  w i thouta ny econ o m ic s ba ckground then atl ea s t ask the trad e unio ns or c iti zen  groups or  s ometh i ng to r e co m m e nda n economist w ho can siti n t here w ho  ca n  repre sentot h erinterests.At t he moment  it is full of peopleeither  fr omthef in an cia li ndu s tr y o r  pu rely fro mac ademi c ba c k g r ound s,so m oneta ry policy get s d ecid e d i n a v ery p arti cu lar w ay.

Y ou’re  a lso critical of  how  mainstre amec ono mi c tho u ght do min ate s acade mia…

I som et i m e sliken the economic sp r of ession t o theC at ho l ic clerg yintheM i ddleAges .  U nless yo u knew La ti n you c ou ldn’tev enrea d the Bibl e beca use thePoper efused to lett he Bible be t r an s l at e d in tothe local l angu a ges.  You ha d t o  eith er le ar n  L a tin or take their w or d forit. E conomics hasbecome com p l e tely ina cces s ib l e to many peop le so  we need t o  changethisin the w ay that s o m e of the  re lig iou s r e f or ms back thent r iedto  do. In  th ose day s,rel igi ous  r eformerspromoted  t he  t ra nsl ation of the B ib lein tolocal langua ges a nd t he  r e adi ng of B i bl e by c om mo n pe opl e.  They  emp h asi sed the  authorit y o f  the  B ib le rath er than whatth e Vaticansa ysis int h e Bible.  They, if you like, dem o cratise d t he re ligi on. Somet hin g simi lar to tha t is n ecess ar y n o w  once a ga in.  T his is not t o s ay th at  wedon’t n eed academic econo m ist s; those peop learen e ce ssa r y. But  i t  ha s to be related t o what’s g oi n gon in ther eal  w orld. U nfortun ately a lot o f my acad emic coll ea gues n otonly do no t work o n the rea l  worl d ,but a renot ev en  in teres ted in the  real  world .
Whatkindof  heterod ox or alternative strea ms ofecono mic  thoughtwou l d y ou like t o se e in the m ain str eam?
Id on’tlike th e t e rm he tero d ox becaus e  i t’s r el ative. It a l r e ady  assu mes that t here  is an orthodox p o sition and eve ryth i n g e lse is h et erodox. What i s h et e r odox can  c hange all t he time.  I n  the1950sMilton  Friedm a n  w a s hete rodo x.My positi onis that we  n ee d  a plu rali st  appro ach wh e re n o theory is superi or to a ny ot h ertheor y.  In myn ew b ook I expl ain that th ere ar e at  leas t 9 maj or  schoo lsof  economics ,  possibly  anot her hal fdoze n i f youincl u d e som e mi no r s chools or s pl i tbi g ger  sch oolsin to s ub-school s  and soon. There a re  ma n y  diffe r en t economic t heo riesa n d they all have so m ethin g to c ontrib ute. Th e y h av e their  we a k nesses an d strengt h s b ec ause  they al lmake  c ert ai n assumptions a bout eth ics andp o litics . T h ey
 represent_a particular_worldview. They are usually_people from_the_financial community_and,_without meaning to_be biased, tend_to look at the_world through a_specific_lens. There needs to be some kind of counter to that. If you are_uncomfortable_with having_people_without_any economics background then at_least ask the trade unions_or citizen_groups or something to recommend an economist who_can_sit in there_who can represent other interests. At the moment it_is full of people either from_the financial industry_or_purely_from academic backgrounds, so_monetary policy gets decided in a_very particular way.

You’re also critical of_how mainstream economic thought dominates academia…

I sometimes_liken the economics profession to the_Catholic clergy in the Middle_Ages. Unless_you knew Latin you couldn’t_even read the_Bible because_the Pope refused_to let the Bible be translated_into the local_languages. You had to either learn_Latin_or take their_word_for_it. Economics_has become completely_inaccessible_to many_people_so we need to change this_in_the way that some of the religious_reforms back then tried_to_do. In those days,_religious reformers promoted the translation_of the Bible into local languages_and the_reading of_Bible by common people. They emphasised the authority of the Bible_rather than what the Vatican says_is in the Bible._They, if_you_like, democratised the_religion._Something similar_to that is necessary now once again._This is_not to say that we don’t_need academic economists; those_people_are necessary. But it has to_be related to what’s going on_in the real world. Unfortunately_a_lot_of my academic colleagues not_only do not work on the_real world, but_are not even interested in the real_world.

What_kind of heterodox or alternative streams_of_economic thought would you like to_see_in_the mainstream?

I don’t like the_term heterodox because it’s relative. It_already assumes that there is an orthodox position and_everything else is_heterodox. What is heterodox can_change_all_the time. In the 1950s Milton Friedman was heterodox. My_position is_that we need_a pluralist approach where no theory is superior to any_other theory. In my new book I_explain that there are at least 9 major schools of economics,_possibly another half dozen if you include some_minor schools or split bigger schools into_sub-schools and so on._There_are many different economic theories and they_all_have_something_to contribute. They_have their weaknesses_and strengths because_they all_make certain assumptions_about ethics_and politics. They