A commenter writes:
I am an Econ prof and the I think the answer to the question depends on the topic. The reaction of my colleagues to Blinder's WSJ editorial was: "isn't that just what we teach our students?" And it is. But it isn't what Economists typically say in the paper because there is this idea that "the public" can't be trusted with a subtle argument and therefore the old "classical" verities, which are often counter-intuitive, need to be emphasized even though "we" understand their limitations.
Recall that Aklerlof, Stiglitz, etc. all got published very easily. And it would be hard today to publish a paper on true classical trade theory, whereas in the "new" standard theories it is easy to show problems with trade. So, the problem is about "public statements", not research.
On the other hand, a lot of self-labeled "Heterodox Economists" are folks who don't want to learn math and who want to lecture folks on the moral correctness of left-wing politics, without doing much research. When journals don't publish their op-ed pieces, they say there is a conspiracy against them. Bah.
That distinction between public statements and research is, i think, an important one. This conversation is often marred by conflations between the two. There is much remarkable work going on within economics, even as there's an odd homogeneity in the profession's public representation. This is partially because its most enthusiastic public outlets are hack shops like The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and half because, as the commenter writes, "there is this idea that "the public" can't be trusted with a subtle argument and therefore the old "classical" verities, which are often counter-intuitive, need to be emphasized even though [economists] understand their limitations."
