Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[Paul Davidson <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>]

At 02:17 PM 8/23/02 -0400, you wrote:
> Mat hints at an interesting point when he
> refers to the old days, before the 
> label heterodox became common.  Then a lot of different traditions
> fit  
> comfortably (more ot less) under the heading of Post Keynesian economics.
> In 
> the two decades since the discontinuance of the Trieste summer schools,
> these 
> different traditions have become much more insular, to the point where
> --oh, I 
> don't know, let's say-- Post Keynesiansm defines itself in a way that
> doesn't 
> leave much room for Sraffians or Marxists; and the Sraffians and Marxists
> have 
> to some extent done the same.


Why?  Because the different schools are using different fundamental
axioms on which their super structure of theoretical analysis is
built.  In the early days it was east to have a united front --
because we adopted the motto of "The enemy of my enemy is my
friend" and we did not try to establish logically differing
positions.  We knew what we were against -- and we knew what
policies we were for (more or less -- for example Minsky , although
apparently a Post Keynesian was against incomes policies).

  But we "appeared" to put up a united front in that we
all claimed some relevance to Keynes as a predecessor -- and we implied
that differences were trivial.


> I'm not  nuts about the
> label "Heterodox Economics" either.  But I like the 
> fact that it's a big tent that encourages discourse across all
> non-mainstream 
> traditions; hell, there's even room for the Austrians. 

That is exactly the problem with the 'heterodox" tent it is a
logical tower of Babel --with some "heterodox" groups actually
using the fundamental classical axioms as their foundations for their
analysis. These groups include Austrians, complexity theories and
multiple equilibrium (nonlinear ) analysis -- 

ALL these "heterodox" approaches are actually  nothing
more than "special cases" of  classical economics where
either the ergodic axiom (or the ordering axiom for non stochastic
models) are fundamental building blocks.

 And that is what  makes it so easy for the mainstream (or
orthodox -- I prefer mainstream because there are differences among
mainstreamers, e.g., New Classical vs. New Keynesians vs. Old Keynesians
vs. Game Theorists) to maintain a united front for their share the same
axiomatic microfoundations.

Thus the mainstream sees heterodox as simply a "divide and
conquer" people -- who do not deserve to be heard in proper academic
circles because they clearly posses fundamental  logical
inconsistencies in their approaches. Until they can get their house in
order, why pay any attention. [ Bob Solow was quoted as saying this ( at
the end of the 1980s) about the "Post Keynesians" who at that
time provided the tent for those who followed Keynes's GENERAL theory
(which required fewer restrictive axioms [as Keynes specifically noted in
the preface to the German Language edition of the GT]) vis-a-vis Minsky
vis-a-vis those who followed Sraffa.]

It was easy for Solow and Frank Hahn and other good classical theorists
to show these logical inconsistences among the various "Post
Keynesians" when discussing certain policies or  theoretical
arguments.

Gary says: The Assn for Heterodox 
Economics is a terrific development in this regard. The next step is to
become 
> a significant enough voice that some of the
> sharper mainstreamers will have to 
> engage with us--as they did, at least in some degree, with Radicals, Post
> Keynesians and Sraffians in those thrilling days of yesteryear. It's a
> long-shot, but not outside the realm of the possible.  All the mosre
> reason to 
> make sure the discourse is collegial and of high
> quality.

I am afraid that Gary is engaging in wishful thinking -- for even the
ECONOMIC JOURNAL is becoming a closed door for such heterodox
ideas.

I fear the non-mainstream (a better taxonomic name)   will not
be taken seriously until they unite behind a single logical axiomatic
foundation that provides the most general theory case, i.e., Keynes's' GT
--  and then if some non-mainstream group differs in some
aspect,  the onus will be on that group to indicate what additional
axioms are necessary to support their special case of the more general
theory

> Paul
> Mat's also right to say that there's no turning back now. 
> ("The 
> Anti-Neoclassical League" anyone?)  Once a phrase turns up on
> someone's 
> letterhead, it's an institution.

So how about shredding the letterhead?

Paul

Paul Davidson

Editor, JOURNAL OF POST KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS

Economics Department - University of Tennessee

503 SMC

Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550

work phone: (865) 974-4221

fax: (865) 974-4601/  (865) 974-1686

home phone and fax (865) 692-0802

http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html