tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post8141034705564219886..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: And here's to you, Mrs RobinsonMatias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-60299846361104005722012-06-22T14:12:25.381-04:002012-06-22T14:12:25.381-04:00Sraffians certainly use the notion of long term no...Sraffians certainly use the notion of long term normal equilibrium, but it's hardly Sraffian. It's actually the conventional view of equilibrium used since at least Adam Smith. Modern Arrow-Debreu GE models have departed from it, but it's still very much in use in every undergraduate manual and in policy advice around the world (recommend this paper http://www.jpe.ro/poze/articole/44.pdf). I think the reasons for her dismissal are, as I said, associated to her believe in the importance of path dependency and uncertainty, both Keynesian (post-Keynesian if you prefer) traits, that tend to emphasize the short term (like Kalecki's notion that the long run is just a collection of short run positions).Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-88755469995219508352012-06-22T12:52:34.621-04:002012-06-22T12:52:34.621-04:00I think the reason why Robinson rejects the notion...I think the reason why Robinson rejects the notion of sraffian equilibrium (or rather the Garegnani interpretation of it,- long period centres of gravitation- because Sraffa himself never talked about equilibrium) is because it have not any sense out of a Marxian model where wages are paid as a bundle of commodities (in Sraffa´s they are a % of national income) and because this concept remember the neoclassical notion of long run equilibrium.<br /><br />I have a paper about it -sorry, just in Spanish-see:<br /><br /><br />• 2011:”Postkeynesianos y Sraffianos. ¿Es posible alcanzar un acuerdo?” Nómadas, Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas<br />http://www.ucm.es/info/nomadas/MA_sraffa/antoniogarrido.pdfantonio garridohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05718040485766541745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-71535158731643321602012-06-22T12:36:01.510-04:002012-06-22T12:36:01.510-04:00I have collected some of Robinson´s remarks. See:
...I have collected some of Robinson´s remarks. See:<br /><br />Antonio Garrido, “John Robinson and the Post-Autistic Economics Movement”, post-autistic economics review, issue no. 22, 24 November 2003, article 6, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue22/Garrido22.htmantonio garridohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05718040485766541745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-46970352839757281992012-06-22T11:03:13.855-04:002012-06-22T11:03:13.855-04:00Andrés Lazzarini tells me that I messed up in incl...Andrés Lazzarini tells me that I messed up in including Marshall, as one that allowed for historical contingency and path-dependency. And he is right, since the marginalist view (even Marshall's) implies that the system moves necessarily to an optimal equilibrium level. For example, the optimal equilibrium always means full employment in the labor market (not several possible levels according to circumstances). The point was that Marshall did accept, unlike, modern neoclassical economics, long term normal positions.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-71480864527648435462012-06-22T10:08:27.974-04:002012-06-22T10:08:27.974-04:00Not sure the retreat to the short term equilibrium...Not sure the retreat to the short term equilibrium notion with the intertemporal models has been a confusion. I think it was a deliberate way of avoiding (or at least is what they thought) the problems with the definition of capital. Of course without a normal long run position with a uniform rate of profit the very notion of competition (free entry), which was central for the surplus approach understanding of capitalist economies is gone. Agreed that she had fantastic put downs. Most famous probably: "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." Also, agreed that on Schumpter it's not clearly a put down. Although I always resisted the urge of comparing the former with Marx. No doubt he 'borrowed' a lot from Marx (e.g. the whole creative destruction), but he did believe in a circular flow that was Walras GE, and he did think that the entrepeneur, the individual Nietzschean superhero, was the driving force of capitalism.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-40386075744729436772012-06-22T02:03:49.786-04:002012-06-22T02:03:49.786-04:00As I understand it, Joan Robinson was also importa...As I understand it, Joan Robinson was also important in her contributions to development economics.<br /><br />I don't consider the comment about Schumpeter to be a put-down. I think she once said something like, "I could never get the notion of intertemporal equilibrium to stand up long enough to knowk it down."Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-11958166432359315902012-06-21T16:29:03.322-04:002012-06-21T16:29:03.322-04:00Interesting post. I think the confusion over the d...Interesting post. I think the confusion over the definition of equilibrium is a significant barrier to engagement with the mainstream.<br /><br />Having said that, I fully expect the mainstream to retreat to another definition of equilibrium whenever we finally nail what they actually mean by it, ending with the inevitable tautology. So I won't hold my breath for getting it right.<br /><br />On a Robinson related note, I feel that somebody should gather a collection of her fantastically brief line put downs. I can think of 3 off the top of my head:<br /><br />"The real wage of each type of labour is supposed to measure its marginal product to society...of course this is a very comforting doctrine for professors of economics but I fear that once more the argument is circular. There is not any measure of marginal products except the wages themselves. In short, we have not got a theory of distribution. We have nothing to say on the subject which above all others occupies the minds of the people whom economics is supposed to enlighten."<br /><br />"Schumpeter is Marx with the adjectives reversed."<br /><br />"Not only that, the doctrine of diminishing marginal utility applied to income itself…justifies Trade Unions, progressive taxation and the Welfare State, if not more radical means to interfere with an economic system that allows so much of the good juice of utility to evaporate out of commodities by distributing them unequally...on the other hand the whole point of utility was to justify laisser faire."<br /><br />“This is an ideology to end ideologies, for it has abolished the moral problem. It is only necessary for each individual to act egoistically for the good of all to be attained.”Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.com