Title: Re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
The critique that I couldn’t recall
in an earlier post is called the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu
theorem. It is not something that
can easily be summarized for a popular audience, but it is an overlooked major
problem with mainstream
I have looked at some of Shaikh's work on international trade and believe that his arguments are well founded. There is an interesting article in the last issue of research in political economy which criticises Shaikh's work from a Marxist perspective.
Lucy
"Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROT
wrong foot. His critiques are
based on logic, while the hegemony of NE is based on sociological aspect:
that's the question.
Mohammad Maljoo
From: "Lee, Frederic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:34739] RE: re: W
Ken writes: Isnt a welfare
situation pareto optimal when there are no potential pareto
improvements?
right.
In PO, there's no way to make Paul better off without robbing Peter.
Ken:
> In fact the Dawes Hickes principal is an application of the
basic notion of Pareto Optimality to
o: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:32
AM
Subject: [PEN-L:34747] RE: Re: Re: re:
What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
hypothetical compensation of the sort discussed below is
different from Pareto Optimality. It was developed specifically beca
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:31
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:34745]
Re: Re: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Surely when u come to practical applicatiions in
social welfare theory such as cost-=benefit analysis not only are
- Original Message -
From:
andie nachgeborenen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:12
PM
Subject: [PEN-L:34733] Re: re: What is
wrong with the mainstream economics?
But to have consistency you need comparability. Incommernsurability means
that you
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34731] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Pareto Optimality is a simple, very conservative, idea. It defines optimality as that situation you can't give Paul anything of value to him without stealing from Peter (or hurting his pleasure in some other way). It tak
ssage-
From: Lee, Frederic
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34739] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream
economics?
For all those who are interested in what is wrong with neoclassical
economic theory should read Steve Keen's book, Debunking Eco
You mean poetry is not commensurable with
pushpin?
-Original Message-
From: andie nachgeborenen
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003
10:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34730] Re: re:
What is wrong with the mainstream economics
Though I use Word I can't open the ncet.doc.
For all those who are interested in what is wrong with neoclassical
economic theory should read Steve Keen's book, Debunking Economics.
If you want a critique that is directed at neoclassical micro see
the attached paper. There are many ways to sho
But to have consistency you need comparability. Incommernsurability means that you don't have that, you can't rank incommensurable values ordinary; you can't compare them. You need a common scale of some sort, ort some ranking mechanism. Otherwise you can't decide which of two outcomes is more effi
Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's the assumption that even within a single individual's utility functions all values are commebsurable, that it's possible to compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts with my contempt for Enron, my love for my sweetie with my
That's what I meant by technical devices. However, commsurability is still maintained,a nd you can't talk about Pareto optimality without it, which is why I focused on that assumption. jks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jks wrote,>The theory depends are two levels of questionable assumptions.. . .Well a
Mainstream economics can be attacked at many levels. Being a philosopher by training, I'll mention some foundational issues that may have been slighted in the discussion so far. The theory depends are two levels of questionable assumptions. One level concerns the notion of a utility function. This
c1991,
received some good attention.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34715] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream
economics?
Mat wrote,
>Perhaps one of t
t the person is assuming all the
assumptions of the GE model.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34715] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream
economics?
Mat wrote,
>Perhaps o
Mat wrote,
>Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream
>economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption. . .
I'm not sure that is exactly true for applied labor models in which "unemployment"
does occur. Because of this,
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> why can't Enron be explained using the (relatively mainstream) theory of the
> principal/agent problem?
>
=
Some questions I've been asking while looking at the Enron document:
Are there sets/classes of
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34696] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Perhaps one of the most easily expressed
and understandable critiques of mainstream economics is that so many of its
results rely on the full employment assumption (trade theory again is a great
example). As Shaikh p
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34696] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Eric says: >At a more fundamental level, utility theory ignores a major claim of many western thinkers that (using mainstream language) people have preferences over preference orderings but that they often find they are
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34694] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
why can't Enron be explained using the (relatively mainstream) theory of the principal/agent problem?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -Original Mes
One way to go about addressing the question
would be to divide your criticisms into internal critiques, external critiques,
and empirical (in)validity.
The internal could mention the problems in
capital theory and other logical inconsistencies (Marc Lavoie does a good job
of summarizing
At 08:13 AM 2/13/2003 -0800, you wrote:
What a big
order! If I were to be forced to talk about this subject, I'd stick to
the basic point that "the problem with mainstream economics is not
that it's wrong in its own terms as much as that it's incomplete."
For example, the mainstream's "new institu
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34673] Re: RE: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Negative externalities can be found in any introductory econ. textbook. The problem is that many or most textbooks tend to minimize their role as a major source of market failure (calling them mere "neighbo
From: "Devine, James"
What a big order! If I were to be forced to talk about this subject, I'd
stick to the basic point that "the problem with mainstream economics is not
that it's wrong in its own terms as much as that it's incomplete." ...
E.g., it doesn't account for "negative externalities,
26 matches
Mail list logo
