Re: Circling your Wagons

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

The other week, Jim Devine mentioned that pk'ism reminded him of
postmodernism - uncertainty and all that. Like postmodern theory, it
undermines transcendental narratives, snipes at authority, has plenty of
highbrow "fun," but is ultimately hollow. Now that Derrida himself says
tha it's time to go back to Marx, what does this mean for pk'ism?

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)


On Thu, 27 Jan 1994, HERBERT GINTIS wrote:

> Ric Holt writes:
>
> >...Solow has definitely thrown down the gauntlet here. But he does raise
> >some important issues which post keynesians need to deal with. Have post
> >keynesians come up with a clear coherent positive theory that provides
> >an alternative to neoclassical thought? This is an issue we need to discuss.
>
> 	IMHO economics is sufficiently in flux that it is not
> worthwhile trying to identify a 'mainstream' and posing one's own
> perspectives as a 'coherent positive...alternative.' There are
> certainly 'old fashioned' and 'new fangled' views, and it is important
> that some people develop the latter. I get the feeling that the
> formation of collective enterprises like pke are more sociological
> than academic: There is a group of mainstream 'hot shots' who control
> the journals, and then there are others who are 'out of the loop' and
> try to forge bonds that allow them to operate effectively in the
> profession. The outsiders produce some good work, but they tend to
> spend a lot of time constructing and repairing their circle of wagons,
> and don't get very far. The insiders, of course, are often arrogant and
> excessively self-preening. But the upshot is not good economics.
>
> 	I don't think pke is very different from mainstream in any
> significant way, except when it maintains the things that Solow
> objects to, mainly the (pseudo)philosophical critique of the theory of
> risk and uncertainty. I am perfectly certain that the traditional
> theory of risk and uncertaintly is perfectly on-target, and critiques
> are just silly and misguided. The non-ergodicity critique is correct
> is some areas (e.g., investment theory), but there is nothing
> non-mainstream about this.
>
> 	Another sociological observations: pke'ers like to talk a lot
> about differences among theories rather than producing new insights
> (there haven't been any really new pke insights in many years, IMHO,
> although I think some of Peter Skott's modeling is interesting and
> provocative), and they have distain for econometric evidence--people
> spin crisis theory without any evidence of crises, etc.
>
> 	Please don't flame me. I write provocatively in the spirit of
> advancing economic theory (which I consider a common enterprise, not
> one susceptible of small-group-formation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Herbert Gintis
> Department of Economics
> University of Massachusetts
> Amherst, MA 01003
> gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx