tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post6451851666014611805..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Fluke Cases for the Order of FertilityRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-31833450115760710532021-06-19T18:06:25.674-04:002021-06-19T18:06:25.674-04:00«you seem to focused on marginalism as a justifica...«<i>you seem to focused on marginalism as a justification for an ideology about income distribution.</i>»<br /><br />Actually that and even more so the other way round too :-)<br /><br />«<i>But I think I have something with some sort of structures in parameter spaces, where I do not bother worrying about that setting.</i>»<br /><br />Ahhhhhh.... I misunderstood then, because the impression I got is that you are coming up with arguments about reswitching, the Cambridges Capital Controversy, LTV, to demolish repeatedly neoclassical approaches. Because that things like reswitching happen because optimization landscapes are "bumpy" is otherwise totally obvious and does not merit finding so many examples of. The LTV and "fertility" topics are more interesting, because the relate to a really big historical debate, that about plusvalue, where it comes from, how to make grow, how it is distributed, which is the central axis of political economy studies.<br /><br />My guess now that you are generating examples not as counterexamples to neoclassical theory, but in an attempt to see if there is some structure of those examples to find some general rules that characterize that shape of the optimization landscape that give rise to "anomalies" in at least some class of model. That may be a very ambitious project, unless the models are quite simple.<br />Without thinking too much about my guess is that it is almost as hard (optimistically) as finding general rules for stability regions in chaos theory models (which may be a hint).<br /><br />But when you talk about the LTV and "fertility" you are also addressing, and I am not criticizing you for it, very different if related topics. and I mentions neoclassical concepts only as paragons to those I think are more fruitful, because for better or worse neoclassicism is something we all know to some extent.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-86192459134717413742021-06-19T08:51:00.687-04:002021-06-19T08:51:00.687-04:00Yes, in models with rent, it matters whether or no...Yes, in models with rent, it matters whether or not one takes <i>r</i> or <i>w</i> as given. In figuring out the cost-minimizing technique, one cannot always look exclusively at the outer envelope of wage curves, since for a large enough economy, the outer curve may be for a technique that has already used all of the land.<br /><br />Blissex, I sometimes think that you seem to focused on marginalism as a justification for an ideology about income distribution. But when I try to explain my hobby to people in real life, I go on about that and about purges in economics departments and about how what is in most of the textbooks was shown to be without foundation even before I was born. But I think I have something with some sort of structures in parameter spaces, where I do not bother worrying about that setting.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-32785392047812905432021-06-19T03:00:50.066-04:002021-06-19T03:00:50.066-04:00«I keep on thinking I am discovering theoretical p...«<i>I keep on thinking I am discovering theoretical possiblities, possibly through sheer bloody-mindedness, that nobody has noted before</i>»<br /><br />I surely agree with the "bloody-mindedness" :-) and I think it is good, but I also think that "nobody has noted before" is because nobody has been looking for them before, because of ideological reasons: if the optimization landscape topology is "bumpy" and "kinky" (for example because capital is not "putty" or "leets") and has local maxima then the distribution of income is an accident of history, and that violates "internal consistency" with the most important of JB Clark's "three parables", the one that (abset government "interference" with the "free markets") income distribution is solely and directly justified by productivity.<br /><br />All your "theoretical possibilities" show that plusvalue distribution is an accident of circumstnaces, so they they are not "internally consistent", therefore: they are not particularly notable from the point of view of someone accepting the notion that the optimization topology is "bumpy" and "kinky", and they are "invalid" or "heresy" for those aiming for "internal consistency".Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-60080800113389994322021-06-18T14:35:50.908-04:002021-06-18T14:35:50.908-04:00If I do not understand it incorrectly what is argu...If I do not understand it incorrectly what is argued in your posts on land as a particular case of fixed capital is that contrary to simple production models there is a difference if one takes as the independent variable r or w. Do I grasp it correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com