I also that it is plausible that, with the standardized curriculum developed by the people of the state themselves, the compulsory, monopolized school system constitutes the main avenue of the indoctrination.
I think you would have a very hard time supporting the idea that being employed by the state will have literally no effect on an economists point of view. It is only natural, and it is not really a point I would use against academic economists anyways. To me, the situation seems somewhat similar to that of philosophers and radical naturalism. Many philosophers will oppose a doctrine which has little to no place for philosophy/epistemology for personal reasons. Or at the very least, they will not look at the matter in as much of an objective manner as they do with other topics. I think personal reasons do play a role in both scenarios.
I don’t think the effect is so profound that you can really go about distinguishing economists at B schools from A schools. B schools do receive funding as well after all. I do think “corrupt” is too strong of a word though.
whoops. posted in the wrong place…