Answer the question at the end by quoting:

Francis "Frank" Hague, born in Jersey City, was the fourth of eight children to John D. and Margaret Hague (nee Fagen), immigrants from County Cavan, Ireland. He was raised in Jersey City's Second ward, an area known as The Horseshoe due to its shape which wrapped around a railroad loop. The ward was created when the Republican-controlled legislature gerrymandered a district within Jersey City in 1871 to concentrate and isolate Democratic, and mostly Catholic, votes. By age 14, Hague was expelled from school prior to completing the sixth grade for poor attendance and unacceptable behavior.
In 1913, the first election for the city commission saw 91 men on the ballot competing for five available seats on the commission. Hague finished fourth with 17,390 votes and was elected to the first City Commission of Jersey City. The only Wittpenn-supported candidate, A. Harry Moore, was also elected. As a result of having garnered the most votes (21,419) former mayor Fagan became the first mayor under this new form of government, and the only Republican to hold that title in Jersey City for the following 75 years. Hague was named public safety commissioner, with control over the police and fire departments. In the same year, Hague cemented his control of the Hudson County political machine by securing for himself the leadership of the Hudson County Democratic Organization Executive Committee.  Hague immediately set about reshaping the corrupt Jersey City police force with tough Horsehoe recruits. Hague spearheaded crackdowns on prostitution and narcotics trafficking, earning him favor with religious leaders. These enforcement acts went as far as Hague himself marching across local Vaudeville stages personally directing the shut down of "girlie shows." At the heart of this change was an inner cadre of officers known as the Zeppelin Squad or "zepps" who were personally loyal to Hague alone. The "zepps" would spy on, and report back to Hague about other members of the department. Eventually, Jersey City had one patrolman for every 3,000 residents, causing a marked decline in the city's once-astronomical crime rate.  Hague took steps to curb the police department's lackadaisical work ethic, punishing offenses that had gone unpunished for years. He also made much-needed improvements to the fire department; at the time he took office Jersey City's fire insurance rates were among the highest in the nation.  Upon discovering in early 1916 that millions of pounds of munitions were being stockpiled on the Jersey City waterfront, Hague travelled to Washington, D.C. to register concerns for the safety of his constituents. His meetings with Congressmen resulted in no action, Congress having decided that Jersey City was an "appropriate port." Hague's concerns were shown to be valid in July 1916 when the Black Tom explosion sent shrapnel flying across the city.  In 1917, Hague, with his reputation as the man who cleaned up the police force, ran for reelection. He put together a commission ticket called "The Unbossed." The ticket consisted of him, Parks Commissioner Moore, Revenue Commissioner George Brensinger, ex-judge Charles F.X. O'Brien and City Clerk Michael I. Fagan. It swept all five spots on the commission. Moore topped the poll, and traditional practice called for him to be appointed mayor. However, when the commission met for the first time on May 11, Hague was chosen as the new mayor.

What happened after Hague registered his concerns?

Hague's concerns were shown to be valid in July 1916 when the Black Tom explosion sent shrapnel flying across the city.

IN: Roberto Mangabeira Unger (; born 24 March 1947) is a philosopher and politician. He has developed his views and positions across many fields, including social, political, and economic theory. In legal theory, he is best known by his work in the 1970s and 80s while at Harvard Law School as part of the Critical Legal Studies movement, which is held to have helped disrupt the methodological consensus in American law schools. His political activity helped the transition to democracy in Brazil in the aftermath of the military regime, and culminated with his appointment as Brazil's Minister of Strategic Affairs in 2007 and again in 2015.

Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation.

He believed in scientific objectivity

OUT:
engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity.