tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post4802349354524608049..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: A Note on the Concept of Vulgar EconomicsMatias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-70152469645102980082012-02-06T21:30:58.588-05:002012-02-06T21:30:58.588-05:00Bill's point is a good one, because it links t...Bill's point is a good one, because it links the return of vulgar economics (in the sense of harmonious distribution) with Say's law. The revenge of vulgar economics in the 70's coincided with the return of Say's law in the form of natural rates. Interestingly, it coincided also with the beginnings of endogenous growth theory which restored the role of savings in long run growth (having been absent in Solow's model). And of course all of this was at the same time as the revenge of the rentier. That's a lot of coincidences.Nathaniel Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06942129307934660181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-23103572810655890822012-02-01T19:24:39.078-05:002012-02-01T19:24:39.078-05:00The book that Bill recommend is here
http://www.ma...The book that Bill recommend is here<br />http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-66786206101443379532012-02-01T06:50:51.872-05:002012-02-01T06:50:51.872-05:00No problem.
This is indeed a rather esoteric sub...No problem. <br /><br />This is indeed a rather esoteric subject, even among Austrians (rather predictably, given their notorious reluctance to deal with data).Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-10869836264441575192012-01-31T00:46:49.833-05:002012-01-31T00:46:49.833-05:00It's also worth taking a look at the final sec...It's also worth taking a look at the final section of Theories of Surplus Value which contains Marx's most extended discussion and definition of vulgar political economy. Here what distinguishes vulgar economists is their treatment of rent, profits, and wages not as distributive categories, but rather as streams on income with their respective 'factors of production' as their sources. For Marx, such vulgarity reaches its pinnacle with the concept of 'interest bearing capital.' Any discussion of a natural rate of interest (J.S. Mill or otherwise) should then be seen as a prime instance of vulgarity.Bill McCollochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677251983426429737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-1655354094423567352012-01-30T08:33:31.222-05:002012-01-30T08:33:31.222-05:00I confess my ignorance about that topic on Austria...I confess my ignorance about that topic on Austrian economics.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-13927491541584896402012-01-30T08:32:30.887-05:002012-01-30T08:32:30.887-05:00I would suggest that sophist and sycophants, like ...I would suggest that sophist and sycophants, like Bastiat are just that. Vulgar meant the dominant, the common thing, which is exactly the 'shallow syncretism' of Stuart Mill. Note that Mill departed on Ricardo, on several points. First, he accepted Nassau Senior notion that profits were the remuneration of abstinence, giving profits (a residual for Ricardo) and independent role in the determination of equilibrium prices (logically incorrect, by the way). Second, he accepted the Wage Fund theory, by which real wages were not exogenous, but determined by supply and demand instead. Hence, without being yet marginalist, Mill had moved significantly in that direction.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-81016335612124236562012-01-27T21:24:39.788-05:002012-01-27T21:24:39.788-05:00Well, if we understand by vulgar economics what Ma...Well, if we understand by vulgar economics what Marx understood, as explained in the quote above (i.e. "sophists and sycophants of the ruling classes" (...) "of which John Stuart Mill is the best representative"), one should not have too many difficulties finding contemporary examples...<br /><br />A propos of your reference to Austrians: I recently learned [*] that Austrians talk about Gross Output (GDP + Intermediate consumption) as a measure of economic activity. I was wondering, do you know of any direct source of these statistics (without having to go through supply-use/input-output calculations)?<br /><br />[*] http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/01/austrian-substitutes-for-gdp-they-are.htmlMagpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-36101542640283237912012-01-27T10:15:30.011-05:002012-01-27T10:15:30.011-05:00Only Austrians really have an understanding of Mar...Only Austrians really have an understanding of Marx within the pioneers of marginalism. Krishna Bharadwaj shows how Marshall actually develops the parts of Stuart Mill that were a departure from Ricardo. In that sense, is this vulgarized Ricardian school that sets the stage for marginalism.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-25237808516043872542012-01-27T09:45:40.514-05:002012-01-27T09:45:40.514-05:00Interestingly, Michael Hudson argues that neoclass...Interestingly, Michael Hudson argues that neoclassical economics (the most vulgar of all) was created/popularised in response to Karl Marx, as it offered a frictionless ideal of capitalism for those who feared revolution.<br /><br />Strange how his existence may have created a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.com