Re: FWD: Whither the AEA?

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> This is what I have been warning about for years.  The problem is not only
the
> mainstream. As ther line in Hamlet suggests ... the fault is in ourselves
> (heterodox economists) who refuse to unite behind a single alternative  to
the
> mainstream classical system -- namely Keynes's General Theory based on
fewer
> axioms than the restrictive axiomatic based classical system.

Three brief points.

First.  Any alternative to "mainstream" economics must be analytically
coherent - or else it reduces to mere socio-political point of view.

Second.  A coherent framework for analysis of entrepreneurial market
economies requires two distinct concepts of "savings", namely, (1)  the net
factor content of the economy's work in process, and (2) that part of their
incomes which suppliers of factor inputs put aside - as and when the
distinction between the two kinds of "savings" is recognized, both
"mainstream" and contemporary "heterodox" economics will fall by the
wayside.

Third.  As a practical matter, the Keynesian - and Post Keynesian -
conflation of the two kinds of "savings" makes it impossible in principle to
address in coherent fashion possible reform of post-Bretton Woods world
monetary arrangements.  Also, the phenomenon of a spillover of New Domestic
Credit Creation by the US into sustained deficit on its external current
account is not amenable to analysis within the conventional Keynesian
leakage-from-the-income-stream framework.

 Gunnar



----- Original Message -----
From: "pdavidso" <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
To: "Ric Holt" <rholt@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: FWD: Whither the AEA?


> >===== Original Message From Ric Holt <rholt@xxxxxxx> =====
> >----- Forwarded Message -----
> >From: Paul_A <paul_a@xxxxxxx>
> .
> >
> >1) Overall: The AEA continues to be ever more monolithic (as hard as that
> >is to belive).  Grad students and younger professors especially show
signs
> >of the near-capture of graduate programs by neo-classics and, as one
> >professor put it, an almost boot-camp like training regime.
>
>
>
>
> This is what I have been warning about for years.  The problem is not only
the
> mainstream. As ther line in Hamlet suggests ... the fault is in ourselves
> (heterodox economists) who refuse to unite behind a single alternative  to
the
> mainstream classical system -- namely Keynes's General Theory based on
fewer
> axioms than the restrictive axiomatic based classical system.
> Instead each heterodox faxtion says -- no the other heterodox systems are
not
> right -- or at least the "Horses for Courses" approach of Harcourt which
> implies for different questions different systems are required.
>
> Such a horses for courses approach allows the mainstream to dismiss all
this
> heterodox babel since they already have a general equilibrium theory that
is
> applicable to ALL economic questions!!
>
> Moreover graduate students who might be interested in a non-classical
approach
> are also turned off by this babel  As one grad student asked me a few
years
> ago.  He would like too read the hterhodox literature but could not spend
his
> very scarce time reading all these different heterodox - often logically
> incosistent with each other) literature when he had a very limited time to
> pass his comps and write a dissertation that had to pass muster with
> third-rate mainstream economists who only knew classical general
equilibrium
> theory and latest econometric tools such as ARCH etc.
>
> When I pointed out to this student that if he followed this approach then
in a
> few years he would be one of these third rate mainstram economists on a
> university faculty forcing students to spend their entire time in
mainstream
> literature -- he felt embarrassed but felt there was no other course he
could
> AFFORD to follow -- since the Post Keynesian approach I gave him in class,
> while seemingly very good and useful, was not even accepted by others who

> called themselves "post Keynesians".
>
> No wonder graduate students and new Ph. D. assistant professors have a
> boot-camp mentality.
>
> >The presenters
> >(and even the presentations themselves) also seem to have ever tighter
> >funding ties to the Federal Govt\Bretton Woods\consulting firm complex -
> >without much effort at outside balance.  In some cases, and in an earlier
> >time of academia, I believe questions of academic ethics and
intellectual
> >objectivity would have been raised by such ties.
>
> In this era of tight university budgets --especially among state
universitiesw
> -- when Deans and other Central Administrators look to Departments as
"profit
> centers" where those who obtain outside reaserch funding are more likely
to
> receive additional funding from the University budget -- it is not
surprising
> that the pressure is on to do research that meets funding tests of the
Federal
> Government, NBER , etc.
>
> ITS NOT THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE THAT'S INVOLED ITS THE MONEY.
>
> SO SHOW ME THE MONEY AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEW GRADUATE STUDENTS WILL BE
> HEADED!!
>
> In fact I believe that the one major reason for the split in the Notre
Dame
> Economics Department decreed by the Dean was to obtain a  mainstream
economics
> department that could attract more outside funding.
>
>
> Paul Davidson
>
> Paul Davidson
> Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
> University of Tennessee
> SMC 503
> Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
> office phone #;(865)974-3303; office fax#(865)974-4601
> home phone and fax # (561)369-1951
> email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
> http://econ.bus.utk.edu/Davidson.html
>