"the proper way to model the behavior of rational agents, interacting in more or less efficient markets"

"As Michael Lewis reported gleefully in The Big Short, there were investors who made hundreds of millions of dollars betting on the upcoming disaster [a crise de 2008]. But those people were not economists. For the case of the mainstream economists, it was actually true that “no one could have known.” If you were the sort of person who could have known— or, even worse, who did know—then by definition you were not a mainstream economist. Therefore, you were “no one” in the eyes of those who were the guardians of professional identity.
...
To analyze the world in this way requires, in effect, the redefinition of human experience into a special language. That language must have a vocabulary limited to those concepts that can be dealt with inside the model. To accept these restrictions is to be an economist. Any refusal to shed the larger perspective—a stubborn insistence on bringing a broader set of facts or a different range of theory to bear—identifies one as “not an economist.” In this way, the economists need only talk to one another. Enclosed carefully in their monastery, they can speak their code, establish their status rankings and hierarchies, and persuade themselves and one another of their intellectual and professional merit. A community and a line of argument constructed in such a manner are unlikely to be well prepared for an event like the Great Financial Crisis.
...
The café society of the academic economist is not about taking on the problems of the larger world.
...
Within their charmed circle, there was little debate over dangers, risks, challenges, and the appropriate policies associated with such developments in the modern world as globalization, financialization, inequality, or the rise of China. History and law played as small a role as geophysics and political geography, which is to say almost no role at all. It was, rather, a chummy conversation over the proper way to model the behavior of rational agents, interacting in more or less efficient markets. And if you didn’t think that question was the central one, well, you weren’t really an economist, were you?...
The beauty in question was the “vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system.” ... Do biologists, for example, spend their time pondering the “beauty” of a “vision” of the living world as a “perfect system”? Do geologists worry about whether the beauty of rock layers is or is not perfect? The very mind-set is mystical."

Trechos retirados de "The End of Normal" de James K. Galbraith