I think that you've nailed it here.

I think I find myself predicted accurately by your theory. I cannot understand Economics as Math, I am suspicious of Economics as Philosophy in the sense that you describe. I wonder what Karl Popper (or even Hayek, who praised Popper) would have made of modern Economics. I tend to appreciate cute Economics and greatly enjoy hearing about behavioural Economics' counter-intuitive experimental outcomes. I probably have more confidence then is merited in this group's ability to produce something useful for that reason.

Do you have no confidence at all in cute Economics' (I assume you are referring to most experimental behavioural economics, but please correct me if I am wrong) ability to provide a more robust starting point on the path to taking economics from philosophy to science?

Central planners think that it can be done.

So as the government grows, those in positions of influence seek to find justifications for the expanding state.

I don't see any evidence that the human race has broken the pattern of the rise and fall of civilization, and so since we're on an inevitable track towards despotism, this has less to do with economics, and more to do with the problem of centralized power.

It used to be the church, now it's economics. But men in power will glom on to whatever tools necessary to justify their arrogance.

I completely agree with you and think that you've illustrated your point very clearly.

Politicians always have the same answer: more. More government, more spending, more laws, more control, more regulations, always more.

Keynes simply provides them with intellectual justification.

“[When] asked for advice about what to do, replied that well, it’s all very complicated… Meanwhile, Keynesian economists… basically said “Push this button — we need more G”.

The politicians came looking for a politically palatable solution, and the Keynesians had an answer.

The important shift in economics was the shift in the role of economics. It was the transfer of the entire institution from academic discipline to political brain trust. Economists were the tools used to argue that all of the impossible things I promise my constituents are, in fact, possible. Worldwide, governments from roughly 1930 onward bought the economics profession lock, stock, and barrel, and not surprisingly they hired the people that told them what they wanted to hear and what they wanted to sell.

The failure of Keynesian economics in the late '70s and early '80s was most importantly a political failure, not an academic one. Through bad policies (admittedly, many of them theirs) the political climate shifted and they were left out in the cold. In proper economic tradition, however, I think the profession has realized the long term advantage to them in siding with government.

This is not unique to economics. Governments, starting around the same time, have also purchased almost all of the hard sciences (eg, NSF) and the arts (eg, NEA) as well.

What died in the Depression was independent scientific (and eventually, artistic) inquiry.

What I'm saying is that if one would put less stock in their ability to decipher people's motives based on their reading habits or even their inspiration from their reading habits, and if one would just give Krugman the benefit of the doubt on understanding that “science fiction” is “fictional”, then the two quotes can synch pretty well.