On 7/8/06, Walt Byars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm in kind of a confused state regarding economics right now. As is obvious, I am having some theoretical problems with Marxian economics.
as a Marxist political economist, I see this as a good thing. In this era, there's no rush to seek out a school to adhere to. I think it's fine to experiment with different perspectives. The NC school has already locked into its metaphysics -- see the first article in the current issue of the _Post Autistic Economic Review_ -- but they're in power and can so avoid hard questions (e.g., methodology). We don't have to imitate their dogmatism. In addition, there are lots of variants of "Marxist political economy" out there. Some have important things to add. Others don't. Yet others are snares and delusions. As a first approximation, I find sophisticated and empirically-minded versions of NC microeconomics have something to add to our understanding of the "little picture," while Marxian political economy concerns the "big picture" of the societal structure that creates the context for microprocesses.
However, there is alot of empirical evidence I've seen that makes it difficult for me to accept neoclassical economics, even the more sophisticated "new keynesian" and "radical" variants.
I don't know how sophisticated the "new Keynesian" school is. Their contributions have mostly been microeconomic (i.e., reasons why the Walrasian model doesn't work, as if more were needed). Their leader -- Greg Mankiw -- is a Bushie. I don't know what "radical neoclassical" economics is. Radical economics -- as seen in the _Review of Radical Political Economics_ -- is quite heterogeneous.
I can not take seriously the idea that the worse and more dangerous a job gets, the more hours and intensity of work, that workers will necessarily get paid more. Or at least that the amount of compensation will be so small as to not necessitate anything approaching "efficiency," even with reasonably informed participants and competitive markets.
There are _some_ compensating differentials in wages. Back when I did a literature survey (quite awhile ago), the data was very weak -- except for indicating that it was _labor unions_ that allowed the realization of compensating differentials. Among other things, the normal existence of involuntary unemployment (and other barriers to worker mobility) and the inability to individualize most production processes makes it hard for compensating wage differentials to apply. Peter Dorman, who used to participate in pen-l, is real expert on the subject. He's at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jim Devine / "It was the mystical dogma of Bentham and Adam Smith and the rest, that some of the worst of human passions would turn out to be all for the best. It was the mysterious doctrine that selfishness would do the work of unselfishness." -- G.K.Chesterton.
