tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post5174390531874010616..comments2024-03-28T12:23:39.665+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: Thirty-three flawed ThesesFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-58296043926898073702018-01-07T04:36:30.867+00:002018-01-07T04:36:30.867+00:00Frances: Just stumbled upon you from twitter. Th...Frances: Just stumbled upon you from twitter. The last five months I have been involved with MMT Modern Monetary Theory in the USA and some of the economists that are considered a cult. They had their first international conference in Kansas City Missouri during September and some of the sessions were quite interesting. Bernie Sanders has an MMT economist Stephanie Kelton on the Board of the Sanders Institute. Professor Kelton made a comment that the Economic textbooks have not been edited or rewritten since we went off the gold standard behind our currency. ANDREW J. Di LiDDO, JR.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15340918485965307785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-66612603015671694752018-01-03T12:23:35.850+00:002018-01-03T12:23:35.850+00:00No, the problem (at least with Ricardo, Walras and...No, the problem (at least with Ricardo, Walras and Wicksell) is that you'd just as likely be handing victory to advocates of the kind of economics Keen criticises. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-84299354987287689362018-01-02T12:37:55.164+00:002018-01-02T12:37:55.164+00:00As you seem to have made up your mind already that...As you seem to have made up your mind already that the "founding fathers" of economics are of no relevance in your new religion, I don't see any point in explaining my reasons for appealing to them. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-72521411806878174272018-01-02T02:05:34.418+00:002018-01-02T02:05:34.418+00:00I thank this blogger for directing me to Keen'...I thank this blogger for directing me to Keen's list, which seems timely and apposite to me. Spot on! There aren't nails big enough to nail the detailed critiques she thinks lacking to any door. Keen has already done his bit there, and continues to do so. <br /><br />And, speaking of detailed critiques, I'd be interested to see this blogger's reasons for thinking current orthodoxy could be refuted by reference to the "true faith" of Ricardo, Walras and Wicksell..? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-34608139830041081722017-12-24T11:29:41.551+00:002017-12-24T11:29:41.551+00:00Anon 23 Dec 7.41 above with missing verb added:
...<br />Anon 23 Dec 7.41 above with missing verb added:<br /><br /> "Nobody in the profession, except what the mainstream sees as "freaks" on the fringes actually asks whether people do have unlimited wants, and if so, why."<br /><br />NKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-46509911956216011912017-12-23T11:51:12.668+00:002017-12-23T11:51:12.668+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-37932134577897285302017-12-23T11:43:20.645+00:002017-12-23T11:43:20.645+00:00You gave Venezuela as an example of what happens w...You gave Venezuela as an example of what happens when politicians don't believe general principles of economics apply to them. What I struggle with is how there seem to be opposite views as to what is behind the mess in Venezuela. One set of economists seem to say that Venezuela is correct to choose to denominate government debt in USD and all the problems are instead due to over ambitious social programs etc. The other set of economists claim that if only Venezuela were to have government debt denominated in free floating Venezuelan currency, then it would have ample resources and financial capacity to have those social programs. As a non-economist, I really struggle to get my head around how such a deep seated controversy with such profound consequences is seemingly skipped past. How can we defer to experts' opinion when they are so contradictory? Worse, there seems to be no inclination to test and potentially abandon either viewpoint based on failed predictions.stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670385074640188296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-88997655497513449402017-12-23T07:41:48.756+00:002017-12-23T07:41:48.756+00:00The economic problem according to neo-classical ec...The economic problem according to neo-classical economics is "how to satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources". Nobody in the profession, except what the mainstream sees as "freaks" on the fringes actually whether people do have unlimited wants, and if so, why. Pareto might have been a philosopher, but nobody in philosophy says that his is the one and only correct view, and they might actually point out that it could be, and in fact most likely is, wrong. <br /><br />The point these people were making was that we need more plurality in economics and economists and non-economists need to question why economics looks at things the way it does. At the moment you cannot make this point often enough. Noah Chomsky is good on where this stuff about scarce resources and infinite wants comes from and why capitalism wants us to look at things this way. <br /><br />Personally I thought the 33 theses were surprisingly good, and given its relatively shortness, it covered a lot of ground.<br /><br />NK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-23418451319269899172017-12-22T21:39:13.669+00:002017-12-22T21:39:13.669+00:00Anonymous,
Economics has always been about the al...Anonymous,<br /><br />Economics has always been about the allocation of scarce resources. You seem to prefer to regard it as being about satisfying unlimited wants: but wants don't have to be satisfied, and no-one in economics has ever said they do. Indeed it is impossible to satisfy all wants when resources are scarce, as throughout history they always have been. The problem is one of distribution, and that is, as you correctly point out, as much a moral as an economic problem. <br /><br />It would be a fair critique of modern economics to say that insufficient attention has been paid to problems of distribution, and the establishment has been far too willing to assume the essential magnanimity of those fortunate enough to have wealth. This is at variance with what we know of human nature, and is thus further evidence that modern economics has lost its moral foundation - which is the point I made in the third to last paragraph of the post. <br /><br />To add to this problem, however, one of the principal challenges facing economics today is the prospect of abundance. It is all too easy to react to abundance by creating artificial scarcity in order to preserve some concept of monetary value, rather than rethinking what we mean by "value". <br /><br />You clearly aren't familiar with my work, or you would know that I am anything but an "opportunist". I have been a major critic of the economics establishment over many years now. It is unfortunate that rather than addressing the issues I raise, you resort to ad hominem attacks. <br /><br />In my considered opinion these "theses" do not demonstrate the intellectual rigour that is needed to take on the economics establishment. Criticising the "theses" for lack of scholarship and logical distortions is not "rubbishing the messenger". It is a legitimate critique of what I regard as a seriously flawed piece of work. I have not said the points are not important, but if they are to disrupt the economics establishment, they will have to be far better founded. <br /><br />I must now remind you of the comments policy of this site:<br />- please refrain from personal attacks on me or anyone else commenting here<br />- please stick to the topic. <br />I will not post any more comments from you that contain personal attacks on me or anyone else. By all means discuss the points raised in the post or in the comments. Do not discuss the poster or the commenters. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-46021829432861773002017-12-22T10:19:28.758+00:002017-12-22T10:19:28.758+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-57473100501473688802017-12-22T06:51:12.809+00:002017-12-22T06:51:12.809+00:00"Economics is all about the allocation of sca..."Economics is all about the allocation of scarce resources."<br /><br />That is a lousy defence. The point they are making is that it is based on an assumption that there are unlimited wants. That is people are greedy, and we have to keep satisfying that greed- even with scarcity. That is what all those indifference curves and budget lines are all about. That is what the optimisation conditions which you must specify in all economic models are all about. These assumptions are based on questionable scientific and moral foundations. Put another way, neo-classical economics need better ontology and epistemology. <br /><br />What these people are trying to do is something critics of the financial sector and the models they were using before the crash were trying to do before the crash. Or people trying against all odds to point out the discrimination women face in the workplace. They are always brought down by opportunists like you. I found your article overly dismissive. Instead of making the point that the economics establishment is extremely difficult to take on, you rubbish the messager. The points they are making are important, even if you think they are not well articulated. That is the point that continually needs to be made. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-75453996298279031872017-12-21T15:38:08.778+00:002017-12-21T15:38:08.778+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-30186775806710404782017-12-20T15:34:38.471+00:002017-12-20T15:34:38.471+00:00I noticed Steve Keen trying to limit the damage to...I noticed Steve Keen trying to limit the damage to his reputation by claiming on Twitter that he did not mean his theses all that seriously. But in today's Guardian there's a letter from 60 academics which DOES TAKE the theses seriously. I'm now even more confused than normal...:-)Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-74120307537167665772017-12-19T20:14:54.637+00:002017-12-19T20:14:54.637+00:00Splendid, admirable post. Keen could have take the...Splendid, admirable post. Keen could have take the example of Keynes, who worked with the instrumentals of marginal economy just to demonstrate that its predictions were wrong. www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-17852451924127389192017-12-19T18:02:51.630+00:002017-12-19T18:02:51.630+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-83227632649575098252017-12-19T17:35:24.259+00:002017-12-19T17:35:24.259+00:00Don't tell me what sources to use.
And it do...Don't tell me what sources to use. <br /><br />And it does not matter when "New Keynesian" became mainstream. It is now. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-32845402496993243602017-12-19T17:13:56.375+00:002017-12-19T17:13:56.375+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-12670783127358605402017-12-19T17:05:28.975+00:002017-12-19T17:05:28.975+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-64610699628845491842017-12-19T17:01:34.028+00:002017-12-19T17:01:34.028+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-35669481545299899042017-12-19T16:55:13.892+00:002017-12-19T16:55:13.892+00:00My bad, Lucas is co-founder of Neo-classical schoo...My bad, Lucas is co-founder of Neo-classical school not New Keynesian. However, the rest of what I said stands. the New Keynesian school is completely mainstream. Mankiw himself is a prominent New Keynesian, and his textbooks dominate undergraduate teaching. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-26542436976366879742017-12-19T16:49:17.775+00:002017-12-19T16:49:17.775+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-28534715970360041102017-12-19T16:33:25.452+00:002017-12-19T16:33:25.452+00:00I don't need to, thank you. It is a straightfo...I don't need to, thank you. It is a straightforward summary of New Keynesian theory by Greg Mankiw. I disagree with Mankiw on many things, but there is nothing controversial in this piece. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-37586006026036248402017-12-19T16:19:38.764+00:002017-12-19T16:19:38.764+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.jerred seiysllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375770046164311780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-56586942642336900442017-12-19T14:15:03.662+00:002017-12-19T14:15:03.662+00:00Thank you David. A great summary.
I completely a...Thank you David. A great summary. <br /><br />I completely agree about Frank Knight. I did mention him, but I didn't cite his work. I've now added his book to the Related Reading list. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-49834790778632285732017-12-19T14:08:35.155+00:002017-12-19T14:08:35.155+00:00Good grief. Keynes is completely mainstream. Peopl...Good grief. Keynes is completely mainstream. People differ in their interpretation of his work, that is all. Robert Lucas is co-founder of the New Keynesian school of economics. They would hardly have called it "New Keynesian" if Keynes was no longer important.<br /> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NewKeynesianEconomics.htmlFrances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.com