I've got to say, as an Austrian fellow traveler, that I'm quite jealous. By the way, how is "Subjectivism, intelligibility and economic understanding"? I've never seen a copy for sale, and no one has yet scanned its pages.
Subjectivism, Intelligibility, and Economic Understanding is a festschrift for Ludwig Lachmann. I find much in Lachmann's analysis to parallel elements in Joan Robinson's analysis. The chapters include a fair number by near-Austrians or non-Austrians (e.g., Lawrence Boland, John Hicks, Jan Kregel). I like this book enough that I occasionally reread certain chapters.
What do you make of Lachmann's criticism of Joan Robinson and the Neo-Ricardians in "Macro-economic Thinking and the Market Economy"? If he truthfully represented his subjects, he seems to make some pretty piercing criticisms of them.
If you're going to have a conversation, you ought to at least choose a nickname.
I haven't read Lachmann's book. I see it is a short account of Cambridge Capital Controversies, and I will read it. My drawing of parallels will not be in whatever criticism of the Austrian school I might get published. Joan Robinson's important paper "History Versus Equilibrium", drawing attention to some themes I emphasize, is from 1974. Lachmann's account is from 1973.
I've got to say, as an Austrian fellow traveler, that I'm quite jealous. By the way, how is "Subjectivism, intelligibility and economic understanding"? I've never seen a copy for sale, and no one has yet scanned its pages.
ReplyDeleteSubjectivism, Intelligibility, and Economic Understanding is a festschrift for Ludwig Lachmann. I find much in Lachmann's analysis to parallel elements in Joan Robinson's analysis. The chapters include a fair number by near-Austrians or non-Austrians (e.g., Lawrence Boland, John Hicks, Jan Kregel). I like this book enough that I occasionally reread certain chapters.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of Lachmann's criticism of Joan Robinson and the Neo-Ricardians in "Macro-economic Thinking and the Market Economy"? If he truthfully represented his subjects, he seems to make some pretty piercing criticisms of them.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to have a conversation, you ought to at least choose a nickname.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Lachmann's book. I see it is a short account of Cambridge Capital Controversies, and I will read it. My drawing of parallels will not be in whatever criticism of the Austrian school I might get published. Joan Robinson's important paper "History Versus Equilibrium", drawing attention to some themes I emphasize, is from 1974. Lachmann's account is from 1973.