tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post6029085667880834539..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Why Oh Why Can't We Have Better Mainstream Economists?Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-1733603065999439002009-05-01T07:20:00.000-04:002009-05-01T07:20:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-13383249841341561422009-05-01T06:41:00.000-04:002009-05-01T06:41:00.000-04:00Previously, Anonymous falsely suggested that I bel...Previously, Anonymous falsely suggested that I believe "everybody else [is] wrong and [I'm] right". Now he pretends he did not. I do not find such constant falsehoods charming. And I've recently <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2009/03/ccc-not-exclusively-about-aggregate.html" REL="nofollow">noted</A> Luigi Pasinetti's point that those who try to confine the Cambridge Capital Controversy exclusively to questions of aggregation have never put forward a convincing argument.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-9195014847272331812009-05-01T05:48:00.000-04:002009-05-01T05:48:00.000-04:00Ill-mannered? What, in comparison to your delightf...Ill-mannered? What, in comparison to your delightfully generous spirited response to me? <br /><br />Funny, I'd taken "not everybody does" to be consistent with "some do"; being so fundamentally confused, no wonder I am constantly spouting falsehoods. <br /><br />I had, evidently ineptly, been trying to argue that while what you say is correct, it isn't necessarily the problem for mainstream economists that you give every impression of thinking. Rather, I see it, as a qualification or restriction, that should not be ignored but which need not be debilitating, and I had tried to argue that if textbook theory is seen as an illuminating 'parable' (to borrow an idea I found in a paper cited below) then such qualifications are less problematic. (This is a different point to the one I made earlier about mainstream economics having moved on to a different model of income distribution, in any case). Now I could be wrong about this, but for you such arguments are "stupid blather". I suggest that responding to arguments at variance with your point of view in this fashion is perhaps not the best way to exonerate yourself from the charge of monomania*. <br /><br />I have encountered a different but related argument to the one I have been attempting to make (in this case, relating to aggregation problems), in this paper:<br /><br />http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/AggregProdFunctionsDontExist.Temple.pdf<br /><br />That is a far more informed and numerate argument than anything I am capable of presenting so it's perhaps disingenuous of me to co-opt the author to my cause, but can you perhaps see where I'm coming from? <br /><br />* okay, introducing a personal criticism to this argument is not helpful, but hey, you give it out, you can take it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-55321096298894505512009-04-30T17:11:00.000-04:002009-04-30T17:11:00.000-04:00In my original post, I wrote, "by quoting Duncan F...In my original post, I wrote, "by quoting <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/08/foley-on-incoherence-of-marginalist.html" REL="nofollow">Duncan Foley</A>, I acknowledged the unoriginality of my understanding." In the midst of other stupid blather, Anonymous writes, "Although perhaps you are confusing the fact that not everybody shares your monomaniacal perspective on this question, with everybody else being wrong and you right." I do not consider constantly stating falsehoods about what others say to be well-mannered.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-54073315158516866332009-04-29T05:43:00.000-04:002009-04-29T05:43:00.000-04:00Oof!
I think it's best to regard my strawperson,...Oof! <br /><br />I think it's best to regard my strawperson, question-begging, innumeracy as representative of no more than my cowardly anonymous econ graduate student self. <br /><br />"I think I said the opposite."<br /><br />Ah well, my bad; I misunderstood you. <br /><br />"he presents no argument for the existence of a coherent "marginal productivity theory of income distribution"<br /><br />that's because I don't have any, and wasn't making any claims for such. Fine, say there isn't a coherent theory, let's refer to "whatever incoherent theory is presented in text books" and call that something that's best regarded useful guiding principal and rule of thumb rather than bullet-proof, universal theory of production that is capable of generating unique predictions in all settings. <br /><br />An Okay, "even given the chosen technique and all processes from which techniques are formed, one cannot necessarily calculate the value of marginal products" - as I suggested, you can add that to the long list of problems with the text book theory, such as it is, a theory which I maintain is a useful way to start thinking about <br />production and income distribution. <br /><br />Whether observations like that are non-sequiturs ... again, okay, if you say so. Although perhaps you are confusing the fact that not everybody shares your monomaniacal perspective on this question, with everybody else being wrong and you right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-83884362568245689622009-04-28T13:48:00.000-04:002009-04-28T13:48:00.000-04:00Thanks for the heads-up. My reaction is more to De...Thanks for the heads-up. My reaction is more to DeLong than to your blog, so I responded there in detail.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-52763902161084884942009-04-28T05:32:00.000-04:002009-04-28T05:32:00.000-04:00Patch, that looks like an interesting book. But I ...Patch, that looks like an interesting book. But I thought Lee was writing a book on heterodox economics and the non-professional behavior of mainstream economists, what with their purges of, for example, Harvard, Rutgers, and, now, Notre Dame.<br /><br />Anonymous writes, "as you say, the notion of marginal product is really only meaningful once the choice of production process is made". I think I said the opposite. Even given the chosen technique and all processes from which techniques are formed, one cannot necessarily calculate the value of marginal products. And he says, "I'd imagine most economists regard the marginal productivity theory of income distribution as a useful guiding principal, and no more than a rule of thumb in practice." Of course, he presents no argument for the existence of a coherent "marginal productivity theory of income distribution". Assertions about simplified assumptions are just not relevant. Since Anonymous is not brave enough to give a name, we cannot tell if his strawperson, question-begging, non sequiturs, and innumeracy are representative, in any sense, of economists.<br /><br />I thought I was going to have to agree with Krugman's <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27krugman.html?ref=opinion" REL="nofollow">column</A> yesterday. But he does seem to have a contrast between how things are now and how they would be in a genuine free market. So maybe he isn't objecting to the apologetics of so many mainstream economists.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-69190973357264747392009-04-28T04:53:00.000-04:002009-04-28T04:53:00.000-04:00http://books.global-investor.com/books/63769/Frede...http://books.global-investor.com/books/63769/Frederic-S.-Lee/Post-Keynesian-Microeconomic-Theory/<br /><br />Maybe you meant that book.Patchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-5186027874411332332009-04-27T18:50:00.000-04:002009-04-27T18:50:00.000-04:00I didn't refer to the marginal product of a factor...I didn't refer to the marginal product of a factor of production. I referred to the marginal product of somebody. I was actually thinking of the Shapley Value (and exploitation being the deviation from what you would get under the Shapley Value cooperative solution) when I wrote that - the point being that the idea of a marginal product is much more general then your contrived example makes it seem.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-78429934284626559452009-04-27T06:00:00.000-04:002009-04-27T06:00:00.000-04:00I'd imagine most economists regard the marginal pr...I'd imagine most economists regard the marginal productivity theory of income distribution as a useful guiding principal, and no more than a rule of thumb in practice.<br /><br />Don't considerations like increasing returns to scale render it inoperable anyway, if taken literally? Don't most econ text books saying something along the lines of: "let's think about a much simplified world with X assumptions; in such a world we would expect factor incomes to be determined in this way. But remember the real world is a bit more complicated than that." <br /><br />I'd have thought the mainstream theory of income distribution in the profession nowadays is something like "bargaining over match surplus" - lots of things determine bargaining power, and the nature of matches, but something not too distant from marginal product is probably part of the equation. If you can leave, and nobody would really miss you, your bargaining strength is weak. If you make a big contribution to output, conditional on the choice of production process, you're bargaining power is strong.<br /><br />So OK, as you say, the notion of marginal product is really only meaningful once the choice of production process is made. This strikes me as a qualification to the theory, rather than completely undermining mainstream economics and rendering all mainstream economists idiots for not paying much attention to it as you think they ought to. I could imagine an undergrad text book including a section on reswitching, without the rest of the book requiring re-writing. It'd just be an addition to the list of ways in which the real world may differ from the simple text book world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com