Sounds like somebody's read Lee and Keen. For the rest of you: Lee, Frederic S., and Steve Keen (2004) The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory, Review of Social Economy, 62(2), June: 169-199.
It summarizes thirty years of literature that systematically destroys micro, topic by topic. >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 > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
