Re: Mirowski and critiques

["James K. Galbraith" <lpgc403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Replying briefly to Herb Gintis:

We are clearly making progress here. Mirowski on one side argues that
conservation principles are implicit in maximization, Gintis, citing Varian,
argues that they are not and that they are not necessary either.
Isaac supports Gintis/Varian, if I read him right.

This is, at least, the basic question, No one is arguing that g.e.
theory actually has implicit within it some economically coherent conserved
quantity. So Mirowski is either a complete washout, whose entire book is
based on an elementary misunderstanding and hardly worthy of serious
attention (something that even his critics contributing to the DeMarchi
volume don't allege), or else his detractors are missing a critical point.

It would be interesting if others with authority to speak on this issue
(and, preferably, having read Mirowski) would care to take up this cudgel on
one side or the other.

****

As for Herb's interesing reference to the "new theories" replacing general
equilibrium analysis. I will freely grant you that there are distinguished
economists doing good work around. But what specifically do you have in mind
in this reference to a new orthodoxy? -- if that is not a contradiction in
terms (!) Around here, a provincial precinct to be sure, we see a lot of
dynamic-computable-general-equilibrium analysis still, with a pretty heavy
representation of representative-rational-actor models, and it all looks pretty
old-orthodox to me. If you're talking about multiple equilibrium models, or
non-equilibrium theories based on non-linear dynamics, or heterodox models
based on game theory, all of which  undermine the neoclassical research and
policy program in fairly substantial ways, then I don't see the point in
using the term "orthodox" for such material.

****

Finally, finally: I would hope that Herb is not at all serious about dumping
the great thinkers of the past into the "dustbin of history."  Or about his
statement that "right" and "wrong" are the determining forces in what gets
ahead  in the history of economic thought.  Those who sling the word "silly"
around in their postings really should be more careful about this sort of
thing.
****

James Galbraith
The University of Texas at Austin
LPGC403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fax (512) 471-1835