I am not sure if I agree with the totality of Milanovic's article, but reading this passage was like meeting my own secret ghosts. As an academic, I spent a lot of time using theoretical frameworks to envision social change. I often think if I am falling in this arrogance trap.

"(...) , or perhaps was counter-productive because it endowed the leaders with the feeling of superiority and arrogance, leading them astray to believe that societies can be reorganized, transformed from the bottom to the top, through sheer intellectual will-power"

"(...) Consider the composition of the Bolshevik Politburo in 1919: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, (...) Lenin and Trotsky have written dozen books and essays. The problem however is that all this intellectual power was often wrongly used (...)

Always look on the bright side of life... I guess. 😬

Ahaha. No worries. Post conference gatherings are always a big mess with lots of new people. :) thanks again!

Thank you! I'm pretty sure you know something about Diogo Martins, since you paid him a beer in the Watering Hole after Crotty's conference. You just did not remember his name. Haha. ;)

I also demonstrate how the contemporary debate is deeply shaped by the macroeconomic discussions that have defined the field over the past 40 years. I conclude by emphasizing that increasing pluralism in economics is essential for enhancing both democratic and academic debates.

Still alive.

Post inspired by the hard work of @ninaecon.bsky.social today.

Could you please add me? :)