Rod Hay wrote: > > Wow, you must have a good thesaurus. I think it is a mistake to regard your > adversaries as idiots. They are not. If neoclassical economics was totally > bogus it would soon wither away. No. Stupidity evolves also. Christianity and theism are totally bogus and they have not withered away. Because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it true. Marxism is withering away, does that mean it is false? It must have some portion of the truth > about how capitalist economies work. When Marx attacked the vulgar > economists of his day his approach was quite different. He did not say they > were simply lying. He instead focused on the superficial and the ahistorical > aspects. The techniques of neoclassical eoconomics are benign. No. Underlying neo-classical economics & its techniques is the philosophical model(some would say ideology) of subjective individualism. Everything in NE follows from this model ,like for example, exogenously determined preferences and the impossibility of interpersonal comparisons across utility functions. Alternatively, in libertarian philosophy everything follows from self-ownership. If you reject self-ownership the argument falls apart. For the most > part calculus or linear algebra. Things that any good marxist economist > would want to know. Maybe. It is possible to build intricate and complicated social scientific models using sophisticated mathematics. Is it necessary for understanding the world? No. There are some problems in philosophy and science that require some degree of conceptual abstraction but no more than anyone with a little background and patience can understand. If one enjoys doing mathematical economics, finds it stimulating etc. that's fine but you are not contributing to an understanding of the real world. It is the assumptions and the lack of history that are > the problem. > For instance the assumption of an utility maximizing completely selfish > individual basis for decision making. That in fact makes some sense in a > capitalist economy. Ask Doug about the guys down on Wall Street. But in fact > there is more to decision making in any society that that. Neoclassical > economics can not deal with the decision making of two individuals who care > about the other's well-being. And it assumes that this type of behaviour is > human nature -- equally true in all societies. But with careful use on small > problems neo-classical economics can offer some insights. Like what? It seems to me that those who insist that there is something true about neoclassical theory are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Individualism is either true or false. If you reject individualism you must reject NE in todo. Marxism (to me) starts with the analysis of social relations and the relations of production(a type of social relation). Is it possible to hold individualism and Marxism simultaneously? If not, which is the better theory i.e. gives the best explanation of the real world? Further, NE does not apply reductionism consistently. A consistent reductionist like James Watson only admits that atoms exist. So, if you are going to allow entities larger than atoms to exist, why stop at individuals? more later, Sam Pawlett
