tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post2256890779151927227..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: What is really neoclassical economics?Matias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-23866519649830294312016-08-20T04:31:32.410-04:002016-08-20T04:31:32.410-04:00I'm glad that you made that clear!I'm glad that you made that clear!Postkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747509012748106827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-36210127871386794572013-06-17T11:44:59.187-04:002013-06-17T11:44:59.187-04:00"I'd put Austrians in heterodox not becau..."I'd put Austrians in heterodox not because one definition is any better than another but because the PK definition is pretty much only used by PKs."<br /><br />Right. "Heterodox" has a normal everyday meaning: not orthodox. Adding qualifications like "not orthodox PLUS believes certain special things I believe" is kind of dumb.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-40242189913467967332013-06-16T00:04:04.394-04:002013-06-16T00:04:04.394-04:00It is a matter of being 'correct'- correct...It is a matter of being 'correct'- correct enough to describe the reality which we are trying to understand (let us try not to be post-modern here). <br /><br />Noah has taken the typical mainstream way out - by claiming the mainstream isn't the mainstream. And by your comments, your conceptualization seems to follow Noah's. <br /><br />In effect, everything is heterodox (definitions are just definitions after all, right?), which seems like a poor argument to make. Everything gets put into the 'canon' and the dissenters are silenced. <br /><br />The true measure is whether the core of neoclassical economics is taught without exposure to other theories (price theory is logically incoherent, but still dominantly taught). My school, UMKC, teaches both canons - although we (and I) favor empirically grounded theories following Fred Lee (for micro). <br /><br />Also, with the interactions I've had with 'mainstream' economists, I feel no love lost by telling them they don't understand heterodox economics. They don't. As a litmus test, ask the majority of mainstream graduate students how much history of thought or alternative theories of price they've read. Your answers will be disappointing. <br /><br />Besides, lack of understanding now does not imply lack of understanding in the future. I welcome Noah into our community for discussion.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-22612374856428822232013-06-15T18:45:04.273-04:002013-06-15T18:45:04.273-04:00As confused. Hey, no big deal. If a good chunk of ...As confused. Hey, no big deal. If a good chunk of neoclassical economists are confused, why heterodox ones cannot also be. But I'm glad they do like Effective Demand. And don't forget the surplus approach ones that don't like effective demand, and the Marxists that like marginalism. There are all kinds of things out there. And by the way, from a sociological point of view the more the merrier. The mainstream used to be more accommodating to accepting everybody in their journals and universities. And that pluralism was certainly good for the profession.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-72496087086530450522013-06-15T18:28:21.213-04:002013-06-15T18:28:21.213-04:00note the last comment was for Noah, the prior one ...note the last comment was for Noah, the prior one for Dr. Vernengo.DeusDJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-59300380147208330122013-06-15T18:14:00.606-04:002013-06-15T18:14:00.606-04:00since everyone is talking about definitions, I'...since everyone is talking about definitions, I'd like to know where would you put non-surplus+effective demand theories that are usually considered heterodox? In this I mean some strands of PKs, most of latin american structuralism, institutional economics, and etc..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12038254356199899746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-65976230984902475262013-06-15T17:31:39.424-04:002013-06-15T17:31:39.424-04:00Please do all of us a favor and do some reading su...Please do all of us a favor and do some reading such as the suggestion given above on Krishna Bharadwaj's book on "Themes in Value and Distribution" so you get a good handle of what you're talking about regarding neoclassical economics. You can't continue pulling things out of your butt without doing any reading, it's simply annoying and inappropriate for someone of your professional caliber, even if it is on a blog. Thanks. DeusDJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-57778162451949785532013-06-15T17:28:40.808-04:002013-06-15T17:28:40.808-04:00I disagree that they should be "based" o...I disagree that they should be "based" on those ideas, though I do think that most heterodox ideas would by definition consist of those ideas plus some sort of institutionalism. Economics does not need to be based on the analytic structure created by the fathers, if it did only this then economics itself could never have a normative outlook that would be acceptable to others (such as including ethics within economics, which is not easy as simply creating a set of rules or simply talking about ethics). DeusDJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-38044093380362469252013-06-15T15:55:38.382-04:002013-06-15T15:55:38.382-04:00By the way, in my view heterodox ideas should be b...By the way, in my view heterodox ideas should be based on the old classical political economy ideas, plus Keynes' effective demand.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-91800514215814705062013-06-15T15:54:37.301-04:002013-06-15T15:54:37.301-04:00Hi Noah:
Nope quite the opposite. Neoclassical eco...Hi Noah:<br />Nope quite the opposite. Neoclassical economics (and heterodox also) are defined by their analytical structures. The core in classical economics took as given the real wage (at subsistence), output, and technology to determine social surplus. The core of neoclassical economics is described in the post. Hence, some classical authors were radical like Marx, but others like Smith were not like Smith, sort of a Whig, but close friend with Tories like Hume. And some neoclassicals like Wicksell were lefties, often described as a Socialist, while others like Jevons were definitely not. Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-85008991670667727682013-06-15T15:48:10.909-04:002013-06-15T15:48:10.909-04:00I'd agree classical and neoclassical aren'...I'd agree classical and neoclassical aren't compatible (well put it this way - you could make a model that has neoclassical features that was structured like a classical model.... but that's a different discussion) - did I ever suggest they were?? I thought we were talking "heterodox".<br /><br />Definitions are definitions. It's not a matter of being "incorrect". Yours works fine - like I said when I work with PKs (and I have and I will) know exactly what their definition is. What doesn't make sense is to browbeat Noah and pretend people don't understand HET if they happen to not use your definition. Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-67190114238289738872013-06-15T14:44:18.196-04:002013-06-15T14:44:18.196-04:00It sounds kind of like you want to define "he...It sounds kind of like you want to define "heterodox" and "neoclassical" as the poles on a left-right political axis...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-6448334939344073702013-06-15T14:43:37.874-04:002013-06-15T14:43:37.874-04:00Hi Daniel. History of thought is not a popularity ...Hi Daniel. History of thought is not a popularity contest. So most economists are neoclassical (like Blaug) and think that classical and neoclassical economics are compatible. They are not. That is a demonstrable fact. So even if the majority uses another definition it does not make it right. The same goes for my definition (used by all Sraffian economists) of heterodox economics. If there is something you think is incorrect with the definition I'm open to discuss it, and if I'm wrong to change my mind. Otherwise, I'll stick with it.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-83459653313941172072013-06-15T13:52:20.434-04:002013-06-15T13:52:20.434-04:00So this is nitpicking, but you realize your defini...So this is nitpicking, but you realize your definition of heterodox is one definition of heterodox that is widely used, but it's not the one used by all historians of thought - don't you? I'd put Austrians in heterodox not because one definition is any better than another but because the PK definition is pretty much only used by PKs. <br /><br />Definitions that only a small community of people use that would confuse most other people are typically definitions that are going to be avoided by historians of economic thought. When I'm among PKs I know what that use of the term means and everything is fine, but I'd never write up a HET paper using it that way unless the audience was largely PKs. It just doesn't make any sense.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-58602272072064552152013-06-15T13:10:38.068-04:002013-06-15T13:10:38.068-04:00When it comes to radical stuff, anarchism, Marx et...When it comes to radical stuff, anarchism, Marx etc Noah gets very wobbly. MaxSpeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594964334301228571noreply@blogger.com