Abstract

The hypothesis of an antieconomy developed in part 1 is incommensurate with mainstream economics. This article explores three reasons for this situation: the limits of discipline-based scholarship in general and of mainstream economics in particular, the status of economists in contemporary societies, and the failure of economists to accept any responsibility for the consequences flowing from the application of their theories. Politicians are unable to resist their economic advisors who speak in the name of science, with the result that the democratic process in relation to economic issues is essentially paralyzed.