Excellent piece, one more part of the puzzle.

"It is quite difficult for an individual to “think independently” of these institutional memberships...." here is the crux of the problem, together with thinking that the immediate past is prologue of what is to come.

How often are studies done based on a few decades of history? History is not cyclical or exactly repeatable. We cannot we make accurate projections if we do not examine first principles.

I am reminded of the "gradualists" in geology and other disciplines: Change is slow, gradual; discontinuities are unthinkable. It was not until the discovery of the K-T boundary and later the plunge of Shoemaker-Levy 9 that we seriously thought about abrupt or cataclysmic change.

Economists, whom I consider to be central players, often project growth well into mid-century, citing winners and losers in the great game of wealth. G.B.Shaw, that eternal optimist, still is alive and well. I am afraid we have not shed the optimism of the early 20th century for a more cautious and clear-headed examination of first principles.

And, as the authors of this piece elegantly point out, thinking independently and across institutional and disciplinary lines is essential.