re:Re: [Pen-l] The Audacity of Data

[Gassler Robert <rsgassle@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
>> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>pen-l mailing list
>pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
>


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l