Re: Keynes and competition

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: Keynes and competition

Allan,

 

I can't wait for John O'Donnell to reply.

Your response is ironic.

I think John is saying that many economists  engage in poor analysis

because they don't recognize the difference between the stuff of economic

theories and the stuff of economic reality. They manipulate variables according

to a specific explanatory theory without really understanding what the variables

represent or whether such variables even correspond to anything in the real world.

I wish economists would stop and think about the nature of their variables.

Mind you this problem exists in all the sciences and is part

of the "post-modern condition".

Harry Veeder

> On Thu, 24 May 2001, John O'Donnell
> wrote:
> > It is not just an error of composition, it is an obvious
> > error of definition. No matter how small the difference from
> > other things, everything that is is uniquely itself. A
> > monopoly exists for each and every item owned or otherwise
> > controlled, however trivial that monopoly may be.
>
> John,
>
> Your post appears to confuse semantic and substantive issues.  If
> you
> want to criticize economists, you have to understand what
> economists
> are talking about.  To do that, you have to *learn* their
> vocabulary
> and not assume that their technical terms have ordinary meaning. 
> For
> example, when economists contrast competition and monopoly, both
> terms
> are being used in a specific sense (i.e., market structure).
>
> These are open to criticism, and receive plenty from economists. 
> (For
> example, the effects of contestability on monopoly pricing is an
> old
> literature.)  Attacking textbook simplifications and pretending
> it
> constitutes an attack on the economics profession is popular but
> pointless sport: the profession is not monolithic and is often
> thoughtful.
>
> Your criticism should not be that economists are wrong about the
> use
> of these words: these words have an established usage.  Words
> don't
> have essences, they have usages.  In contrast a valid criticism,
> which
> you seem to be trying to make, is that neoclassical economists
> have
> focused on the least useful concept of competition.  Competition
> as a
> process, as developed extensively by the Austrians (and I fold
> Schumpeter in to that crowd), is a more fruitful concept to work
> with
> for understanding the policy problems
> that interest you.
>
> Alan