Reply #57: A few comments...

[anaxarchos]

1) We are describing Political Economy here. That is what it was called. Not only is it a Social Science (i.e. "Soft Science") but it was born of an intimate interaction between politics and economics. Modern liberalism is born of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and others. Bentham WAS an economist (the "father of utilitarianism"), as was J.S. Mill's father, James Mill. J.S. Mill was mentored by David Ricardo, second only to Adam Smith in his importance as a "classical" economist. Not only is it proper to talk of "liberal economics" but it is virtually impossible to separate them ("liberal economics" from "liberalism"). The existence of "conservative economics" (in truth, there have been many) is much more debatable.

2) "Liberal" in the context of economics is in no way the equivalent of "left-wing". This is the real "traditional liberals", a label which the Libertarians attempted to usurp. The Liberal Economists were not "Left", except on some social issues on which they ranged from open-minded to eccentric. In turn, Keynes was well to the right of the classicals in many of his opinions. He was "left" only in comparison to the Marshallites who dominated economics when he began to write (yes, it's an Oxford/Cambridge thang).

3) Krugman, Stiglitz, and Galbraith are "neo-Keynesians", which puts them to the right of Keynes himself (who, in turn, wasn't "left"). Read their biographies sometime. Krugman was on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank. This ain't Move-On or KOS.

The real split is between some fairly "conservative economists" (your "liberals") and a very small group of pro-business technicians, corporate tools, and discredited right-wingers. Real "liberal" (or "left" by today's definition - maybe "left liberal") economists aren't even in this "debate", let alone gen-u-ine "leftists".

That is how far the spectrum has "shifted" to the right.