Julio and Jim,
I disagree with both of you. There is nothing to be gained by
mastering neo-classical micro. I did have a very good understanding
of neo-classical micro, including the mathematical models. I went
through the era of the Cambridge Controversy. I think one could say
that Sraffa, Joan Robinson, Passinetti, Guigliani et al had mastery of
the models of Samuelson and Solow. A lot of good it did them. Or
us. I once could read a book (though I don't think I could now) like
"Theoretical Welfare Economics" by De Graaf which in the '60s
destroyed neo-classical economics through mastery of it. People keep
destroying it intellectually but it still controls academia.
There is nothing in neo-classical micro on consumer behavior that is
anything but dishonest and obfuscating.
There is nothing in neo-classical micro on production that is
anything but dishonest and obfuscating. Bright students that want to
make fortunes take Principle and then quickly switch to Finance rather
than economics because they see that the economics has nothing to do
with the world. Those students (and our leaders of industry and
commerce) don't bother with a mastery of micro. They study Finance
but are delighted to have economists throw dust in the eyes of the
public/voters.
No, Julio and Jim, you are mistaken. There is nothing to be gained
by mastering the mainstream micro. Mastering neo-classical keeps you
busy for a while and screws up your mind even if you know it is
nonsense. Didn't Keynes say something about taking a long time to
escape that?
Gene Coyle
On Mar 2, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
Eugene Coyle quoted:
(Thaler urges his students to master the same traditional,
mathematical models their colleagues do if they want to be taken
seriously.)
Julio Huato wrote:
It's solid advice to students of the social sciences to master the
"same traditional" (i.e. the existing) mathematical models of the
economy. That's premise of any serious critique of economics. It's
not only for others to take you seriously. It's for us to take
ourselves seriously.
I agree that's important to know the official (orthodox) version of
economics, including the math. We can actually learn from it. That's
because the official economics isn't totally wrong. It represents an
_incomplete_ vision of the economy, suffering from commodity fetishism
(a.k.a., the illusions caused by capitalist competition). This means
that the totality -- the class nature of production and of the economy
as a whole -- is usually missed. However, sometimes these models say
something about the operations of pieces of the totality. Modern
oligopoly models, for example, say much more than Marx's idea that
profit rates tend to equalize between sectors (unless blocked). In
fact, Paul Sweezy contributed a major idea to oligopoly theory (the
kinky demand curve model).
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
