Bootstraps

that “[i]t is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power”. (Human Action V1)

Is this true? If so, does it not come dangerously close to an admission that economics is less disinterested science than political ideology?

It could be argued that just because economist’s motives have often been less than pure, that does not mean that the results of economic investigation are sullied. How many advances in the physical sciences arose not from a purely theoretical desire for truth but from a personal vendetta? (Not a rhetorical question, by the way. I would really like to know.)

But this is far from obvious. Perhaps a better line of argument would point out that economics, politics, and ethics all deal with behavior under constraints and so their subject-matter often intersects, which often leaves economists with unavoidably partisan perspectives.