The mathematization of economics since WW II has made mainstream — neoclassical — economists more or less obsessed with formal, deductive-axiomatic models. Confronted with the critique that they do not solve real problems, they  often react as Saint-Exupéry‘s Great Geographer, who, in response to the questions posed by The Little Prince, says that he is too occupied with his scientific work to be be able to say anything about reality. Confronting economic theory’s lack of relevance and ability to tackle real probems, one retreats into the wonderful world of economic models. One goes into the “shack of tools” — as my old mentor Erik Dahmén used to say — and stays there. While the economic problems in the world around us steadily increase, one is rather happily playing along with the latest toys in the mathematical toolbox.

Modern mainstream economics is sure very rigorous — but if it’s rigorously wrong, who cares?

Instead of making formal logical argumentation based on deductive-axiomatic models the message, I think we are better served by economists who more  than anything else try to contribute to solving real problems. And then the motto of John Maynard Keynes is more valid than ever:

It is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.

Me:  Yes, and this is why my model of Wisdom as an Integrated Trinity-Unity including and encompassing an integrated Duality expressed thusly:

[ 1 X ( 1 X 1) ] where X = integration, 1 is a reality, (1 X 1) is an integrated Duality and
[ 1 X ( 1 X 1) ] is an integrated Trinity-Unity including and encompassing and integrated Duality….and is actually both a paraphrased re-statement of Keynes’ motto….and the means of also becoming less vaguely right and actually more and more comprehensively right.