I probably will not order the first two. But I think their existence is of interest. And I do not currently have access to the third.
- Norbert Häring and Niall Douglas (2012) Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories, Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards, Anthem Press.
- Kalle Lasn (2013) Meme Wars: The Creative Destruction of Neoclassical Economics, Seven Stories Press.
- Tobias Galla and J. Doyne Farmer (22 January 2013). Complex Dynamics in Learning Complicated Games, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V. 110, No. 4: pp. 1232-1236
- Sergio Parrinello (2000). The "Institutional Factor" in the Theory of International Trade: New vs. Old Trade Theories.
I suppose I might try to find the paper, by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright, that Paul Krugman references in his New York Times column last Friday. By the way, Krugman is basically worrying that economics is "vulgar political economy", a technical term introduced by Karl Marx. But Krugman cannot reference Marx or acknowledge Marx was maybe correct about something.
In my draft paper on the failure of the theory of comparative advantage to justify free trade, I am currently ignoring Krugman and new trade theory. The fourth reference above might be usefully footnoted in my article. I believe Parrinello also has an article in a recent festschrift volume for Ian Steedman.
I recently stumbled across Rob Beamish's 1992 book, Marx, Method, and the Division of Labor. This book traces the development of a concept, the division of labor, in Marx's manuscripts and published work, including the manuscripts I mentioned in a previous post. Furthermore, Beamish argues that if historical materialism is true, it must apply to the development of Marx's ideas.
"By the way, Krugman is basically worrying that economics is 'vulgar political economy', a technical term introduced by Karl Marx. But Krugman cannot reference Marx or acknowledge Marx was maybe correct about something."
ReplyDeleteMarx cannot be right on that, as Brad DeLong already ruled that he was wrong, on that and on everything else (well, perhaps, perhaps! not saying when saying "I'm hungry"). See here: "If only Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had been right and the state were a committee for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie..."
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/if-only-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels-had-been-right.html
So, when Krugman says:
"You get the idea: The austerity agenda looks a lot like a simple expression of upper-class preferences, wrapped in a facade of academic rigor. What the top 1 percent wants becomes what economic science says we must do."
He must be speaking of something different; otherwise, Krugman would have to be mistaken, too, and that's an impossibility. Ask DeLong.
See? It all makes sense.
Magpie,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me you're attempting your hand at irony.
I'd be very concerned otherwise...
No, I'm attempting my hand at humour :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd - trust me on this - you do need some humour, lots of it, when doing what I am doing: trying (quite seriously, too!) to make sense of guys like DeLong and Krugman or mainstream economics.
I guess some of their "logic" is rubbing off on me...
Oooh! Do the good and mighty have eyes everywhere?
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding Karl Marx: Hoisted from the Archives from Four Years Ago May Day Weblogging, by Brad DeLong
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/05/understanding-karl-marx-hoisted-from-the-archives-from-four-years-ago-may-day-weblogging.html
Chris Bertram (from Crooked Timber) also had to teach Marx to newbies. That's his take on how to do that:
Explaining Marx to newbies, by Chris Bertram
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/20/explaining-marx-to-newbies/
"Each to their own, I suppose."
Thank you, Magpie, for linking to DeLong's May Day post. I did want to read Bertram's earlier reaction, but I definitely do NOT want to see a discussion of Bertram versus DeLong here.
ReplyDeleteI took Krugman's column last Monday as an attempt to state the case for Keynesian policy now in as broad a way as possible, while noting his disagreements about long term policy.
" I definitely do NOT want to see a discussion of Bertram versus DeLong here."
ReplyDeleteFair enough.