I've observed that the most common (non) argument that I've seen against
heterodox economics is "If mainstream economics is so bad, then why do
most experts follow it?"
I assume alot of you have come across this annoying argument before, and I
am wondering how you reply to it. I generally like to
IMO the most effective argument (albeit that it is not one I would try out
at a cocktail party as it is likely to get you a reputation as a bore), is
to start banging on about the Cambridge Capital Controversy. This is one
issue on which the mainstream view was wrong, they argued for a decade abou
Steve Keen has an entire book about this sort of stuff (DEBUNKING
ECONOMICS). The first page refers to a major error of orthodox (NC)
economics which is similar to the Cambridge Capital Controversy: NC
economics has Lipsey and Someotherguy's "theory of the second best"
(that says that if there are
Why risk boring people at cocktail parties when you
can cut right to the belly button of the beast -- the
peculiarly named 'lump-of-labor fallacy' that just
happens to be the double-bound pillar upon which
mainstream economics has built its schizophrenogenic
edifice?
Oroboros has nothing on a sna
Yeah, that is probably the most perfect example to use. Another one is
that Stigler and Kindahl wrote a whole book trying to refute Gardiner
Means' administered price thesis. Means replied pointing out that S&K had
no idea of what the APT was. In another article, they admitted in a
footnote he was
I am boring, but I don't go to cocktail parties. Solow gave the definitive
answer:
NC is wrong, but who cares? Reswitching is not of empirical importance.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 07:05:38PM -, Daniel Davies wrote:
> IMO the most effective argument (albeit that it is not one I would try out
On 11/13/05, Michael Perelman wrote:
>... Solow gave the definitive answer:
> NC is wrong, but who cares? Reswitching is not of empirical importance.
the only thing that can trump a theory is another theory that is
logically superior and encorporates the empirically-valid elements of
the first t
At 01:07 PM 11/13/2005, you wrote:
I've observed that the most common (non) argument that I've seen against
heterodox economics is "If mainstream economics is so bad, then why do
most experts follow it?"
I assume alot of you have come across this annoying argument before, and I
am wondering how
Let me modify Jim's pithy statement to allow for wealthy think tank funding
having an
effect. Think about the huge money flows to the handful of global warming
sceptics.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:37:16PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> the only thing that can trump a theory is another theory that
Well, one of my main things is that I support the Administered Price
Thesis associated with Means over mainstream pricing theories. I am not
100% sure, but can't this theory be considered inherently contrary to
neoclassical economics?
Forgive me if I am wrong (which I probably am, because some of
Walt writes: >... by mainstream I was referring to the particular
views which are held by a vast majority of the profession (I said
mainstream rather than NC for this reason).<
that's right. There's a difference between the official mainstream
(what I call orthodox) economics and broader neoclassi
Another popular way of saying it is "you can't beat something with nothing."
Anyone who looks at the devastated state of sociological theory at the present
time knows that you can. They defeated structural-functionalism and now have
nothing. (More properly, they have nothing dominant, but the re
When my book Beyond Profit and Self-Interest was accepted for publication one
condition was that I read Becker's Accounting for Tastes. When I reread Stigler
and Becker's "De Gustubis..." I discovered that it actually refutes NC welfare
economics rather than supports it. At one point they say so
I may one day pen a defence of Becker as the lost prodigal of heterodox
economics. He is actually very heterodox in his economics and only really
fits in at Chicago by hanging round with a crew of wannabes who translate
his economics into kindasorta neoclassical models. Needless to say the
wannab
14 matches
Mail list logo
