Economics is fundamentally political. We cannot escape this fact. The so-called “free market” is constructed by laws, maintained by institutions, and enforced by states. The choice between austerity and stimulus reflects deeper beliefs about responsibility, fairness, and social obligation. The mandates of central banks are products of political decisions. The emphasis placed on price stability in Western central banks rather than, say, regulating private finance reflects value judgments as well as political lobbying. One of the biggest differences between mainstream economics and heterodox economics is that the former often disguises political choices as technical ones. Economics has never been, and never will be, a value-free science, no matter how much today's mainstream economics tries to present it that way. At its core, economics is shaped by ideologies, human morality, competing interests, social norms, and political priorities. Pretending otherwise does not make economics more rigorous. It just makes it more dangerous.

How bad is administrative bloat in higher ed? At MIT, the “student body has grown by 8% and its faculty by 9% since the mid-1980s. By comparison, the tally of administrators jumped by 189%.”

How many heterodox macroeconomics models have been published in the top-5 journals for the last 30 years? I guess that zero is a good estimate. So there is a serious problem of pluralism in economics. Denying the problem doesn't make it disappear.