tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post5822634293058968367..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: The Moving Finger Writes...Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-26339526021156993862008-06-16T12:03:00.000-04:002008-06-16T12:03:00.000-04:00"In that case there should be little general probl..."In that case there should be little general problems for Marxism."<BR/><BR/>They can be all generally wrong, while having different specific mistaken claims.<BR/><BR/>Who says you can't have unity within diversity?<BR/><BR/>AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-73749532203653147092008-06-16T10:55:00.000-04:002008-06-16T10:55:00.000-04:00"Indeed "Marxism" is claimed by so many grouplets ..."Indeed "Marxism" is claimed by so many grouplets --amusingly many, given the small number of Marxists-- that it is best not to say much at all about "Marxism" in general."<BR/><BR/>In that case there should be little general problems for Marxism. <BR/><BR/>Apart from bad pubclic relations, shared by all of them.... ;-)Michael Greineckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779846063984632110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-56172803781540004922008-06-16T10:09:00.000-04:002008-06-16T10:09:00.000-04:00"In Marxism, class is constituted by the productio..."In Marxism, class is constituted by the production relationships of individual, it is not the basic unit."<BR/><BR/>I'm far from being well read in Marxist literature, but I know that Jon Elster style analysis of Marxism from the standpoint of methodological individualism is not a universally shared methodological assumption among Marxists.<BR/><BR/>Indeed "Marxism" is claimed by so many grouplets --amusingly many, given the small number of Marxists-- that it is best not to say much at all about "Marxism" in general.<BR/><BR/>AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-9072669191032361922008-06-16T06:38:00.000-04:002008-06-16T06:38:00.000-04:00"This needs elaboration. Class is the unit of anal..."This needs elaboration. Class is the unit of analysis in a lot of Marxism. In a lot of classical economics for that matter. Workers eat their wages, capitalist reinvest their profits, that kind of thing."<BR/><BR/>In Marxism, class is constituted by the production relationships of individual, it is not the basic unit.Michael Greineckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779846063984632110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-82602547188009594912008-06-16T03:48:00.000-04:002008-06-16T03:48:00.000-04:00Scarf's paper available here:http://cowles.econ.ya...Scarf's paper available here:<BR/>http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d00b/d0079.pdf<BR/><BR/>Debreu's paper on regular economies here, though you need JSTOR.<BR/><BR/>http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v38y1970i3p387-92.htmlYouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-77083006923409774992008-06-16T03:44:00.000-04:002008-06-16T03:44:00.000-04:00"Class is not the unit of analysis in Marxism"This..."Class is not the unit of analysis in Marxism"<BR/><BR/>This needs elaboration. Class is the unit of analysis in a lot of Marxism. In a lot of classical economics for that matter. Workers eat their wages, capitalist reinvest their profits, that kind of thing.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-49160659103726218002008-06-16T03:43:00.000-04:002008-06-16T03:43:00.000-04:00"Even model economies, conforming to the assumptio..."Even model economies, conforming to the assumptions of orthodox economics, need not have any tendencies to converge to equilibrium."<BR/><BR/>Robert,<BR/>If these three people found themselves on a deserted island, and they had exactly these preferences, and exactly these endowments, what trading ratios would you expect to observe?<BR/>(I'd go with the 1/3's, unstable or not). In other words, so what? Sometimes the real world is unstable.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-17786356569897688622008-06-15T17:27:00.000-04:002008-06-15T17:27:00.000-04:00"the idea that the aggregate of individual behavio..."the idea that the aggregate of individual behavior cannot be modeled as an individual representing the aggregate is a huge problem for Marxists, since it destroys the idea of using classes as the unit of analysis."<BR/><BR/>Class is not the unit of analysis in Marxism.Michael Greineckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779846063984632110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-12921174710622138922008-06-15T17:18:00.000-04:002008-06-15T17:18:00.000-04:00Robert,I think you will like this paper (JSTOR) by...Robert,I think you will like <A HREF="http://www.jstor.org/pss/1182898" REL="nofollow">this</A> paper (JSTOR) by William Bryant. He basically makes the same point about instability and the second welfare theorem.Michael Greineckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779846063984632110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-64260170657348494262008-06-15T17:10:00.000-04:002008-06-15T17:10:00.000-04:00I'll continue on with Alex's line of thought here....I'll continue on with Alex's line of thought here. This looks like an interesting exposition of why price adjustment processes themselves are important to study--especially in small or very frictional economies--which is something that neoclassical macroeconomists in particular are obsessed with, perhaps to an unhealthy degree.<BR/><BR/>What does NOT follow are the entire contents of the conclusion. Not A does not imply B when an unknown C might be the truth. The conclusion makes exactly the same argument that creationists make--since biology does not explain everything then we must have divine intervention. Since tatonnement does not explain everything, a Marxian or institutionalist theory must.<BR/><BR/>To blatantly crib something notsneaky said a while back, the idea that the aggregate of individual behavior cannot be modeled as an individual representing the aggregate is a huge problem for Marxists, since it destroys the idea of using classes as the unit of analysis. It is much less a problem for neoclassical economists who prefer to look at individual behavior, even macroeconomists who adopt highly restricted models as a means of storytelling and rough quantitative guesstimation. The very existence of macro (and labor and finance and public, etc) as fields indicates economists' understanding that most interesting questions are quantitative and not qualitative. The existence of 'labor' or 'capital' or 'society' as coherent entities seems to matter much less than the old Marshallian questions like "How do people adjust their behavior when gasoline becomes more expensive? And what happens when governments impose price controls?" And lo and behold, neoclassical economists got that one right using old Marshallian theory as a heuristic.<BR/><BR/>-ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-53028671329706441502008-06-15T14:03:00.000-04:002008-06-15T14:03:00.000-04:00"My thesis is not "that [real-world] economies nee..."My thesis is not "that [real-world] economies need not be near equilibria." It is that orthodox economists have no reason to expect actually existing more-or-less capitalist economies to ever be in such equilibria."<BR/><BR/>OK, I do actually agree that economists in general have provided little realistic justification for treating equilibria as the normal state of the economy. So it remains an open question to what extent this is so.<BR/><BR/>But I do think that by treating only the tatonnement dynamics, your example does not go that far into the direction of proving your clarified thesis.<BR/><BR/>I'm also curious as to why you limit your claim to orthodox economists. Do you know of some convincing dynamics for justifying Sraffian equilibria for instance?<BR/><BR/>"I don't see how this question is raised by any of the preceding discussion"<BR/><BR/>I meant that the jump from the claim that 'methodological individualism can not put sufficient restriction on dynamics' to the claim that 'therefore we should use structuralist models' is not justified. The assumed failure of methodological individualism to provide nice models does not imply that structuralist models are better connected to reality.<BR/><BR/>AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-45200293908315701542008-06-15T13:08:00.000-04:002008-06-15T13:08:00.000-04:00I must have been unclear on my thesis. My thesis i...I must have been unclear on my thesis. My thesis is not "that [real-world] economies need not be near equilibria." It is that orthodox economists have no reason to expect actually existing more-or-less capitalist economies to ever be in such equilibria.<BR/><BR/>In other words, my post presents an internal critique of neoclassical economics. Even <I>model</I> economies, conforming to the assumptions of orthodox economics, need not have any tendencies to converge to equilibrium.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I don't think the issues raised by Scarf's example are limited to tatonnement processes. Other mainstream dynamic processes I've seen seem either ad hoc or have similar issues (e.g., in Franklin Fisher's book).<BR/><BR/>I don't see how this question is raised by any of the preceding discussion:<BR/><BR/>"How does the desire of economists to have simple and pretty models have any implications about what the world is really like?"<BR/><BR/>I don't see how any discussion confined to neoclassical General Equilibrium theory can have anything to say about what the world is really like.<BR/><BR/>I hope that a concrete example might help lurkers, if any, with the <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-apathy-i-dont-care.html" REL="nofollow">prior</A> discussion.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-19082156331546774702008-06-15T12:24:00.000-04:002008-06-15T12:24:00.000-04:00"Furthermore, the example is of brain-dead tâtonne..."Furthermore, the example is of brain-dead tâtonnement dynamics."<BR/><BR/>So why is it relevant for your purpose --to show that economies need not be near equilibria-- given that tatonnement dynamics is not the best way to analyze the problem (despite what economists used to think at one time). <BR/><BR/><BR/>"This lack of any empirical implications of neoclassical theory for market behavior is an implication of the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu results."<BR/><BR/>This is nonsense. It is just as nonsensical as saying that classical mechanics lacks any empirical content beyond some conservation laws and thus it is empirically useless. Of course, once you take into account the initial conditions, the behavior of the system becomes quite well specified.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"The failure of General Equilibrium Theory to limit dynamics, I gather, is intrinsic to methodological individualism, in which independent agents can have arbitrary preferences and endowments.Attempts to explain economies seem to need to postulate influences on tastes and income above the level of individual, for example, by others in one's social class or through some sort of structuralist theory. In other words, there is too such a thing as society."<BR/><BR/>Let's assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that your first sentence is true (although it is not justified at all, if you just note that tatonnement is not the only way to model dynamics).<BR/><BR/>How does the desire of economists to have simple and pretty models have any implications about what the world is really like?<BR/><BR/><BR/>It is remarkable how many bad criticisms of GE are out there, given that GE should not be that hard to criticize.<BR/><BR/>AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com