On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:05 AM, David Picón Álvarez wrote:
> this article seems an interesting overview of economic history and
> serves
> well to put neoclassicism and the Austrian school in context:
> http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/biology_economics.htm
I'm afraid, having read it's first three sentences, that this article
has little merit:
"...Neoclassical economics can be considered to cover a relatively
wide range of economic thought ranging from the pure “free-market”
economics of those like Milton Friedman to the Keynesian economics of
John Keynes.
What virtually all of the Neoclassical schools of thought share, is a
view of human beings as rational informed value judging individuals,
whose behaviors can be modeled by mathematical formulas."
No only does he ludicrously describe Keynes--who repeatedly ridicules
mathematical modeling of economic behavior--as "Neoclassical." He
even fails to understand the theoretical basis of ordinary (including
Marxist) microeconomics, which is not that economic actors are
"rational informed value judging individuals," but merely that
*enough* economic actors act rationally--the sum of other behaviors
being random with respect to that rationality--for economic
rationality to model the central tendency ("average") of market
behavior.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
