tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post7132417163293887433..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Alternative Economics In Mechanics' Institutes And Think TanksRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-55354283952005004822011-10-15T02:43:53.055-04:002011-10-15T02:43:53.055-04:00@ Ronald Rutherford:
"The State obviously as...@ Ronald Rutherford:<br /><br />"The State obviously as it has unlimited resources and little accountability"...<br /><br />And it also has a mind, right? So that it can punish those who dare theorizing to the right, just like the Koch Brothers and all them 1%'ers.<br /><br />"The market" is a concept, not an individual; so is "the State". It can't do, or not do, anything "by itself" without a conscious decision or interest by somebody to censor somebody else.<br />Please, learn to think properly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-60716888843108398012010-07-21T15:56:46.668-04:002010-07-21T15:56:46.668-04:00Who has the money to demand and pay for the produc...<i>Who has the money to demand and pay for the production of economic theories in our society?</i><br />Now that is a tough one...<br />The State obviously as it has unlimited resources and little accountability. Thus economic theories would in fact support the status quo and promote Keynesianism.Ronald Rutherfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01169520514154562290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-66335331361828511102010-07-06T05:49:42.150-04:002010-07-06T05:49:42.150-04:00George Stigler, not a leftist or heterodox economi...George Stigler, not a leftist or heterodox economist by any means, once argued that the production of economic theories should be analyzed like any other market. Who has the money to demand and pay for the production of economic theories in our society? Rich capitalists, mostly. What sort of economic theories are produced by economists in response to this demand? Theories which justify the status quo distribution of wealth, and which support the unfettered operation of capitalist markets. Why should anyone with any economics understanding be surprised at this?peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-20146434154637168812010-06-08T01:32:08.732-04:002010-06-08T01:32:08.732-04:00The change happened because of Hayek' earlier ...The change happened because of Hayek' earlier arguments.<br /><br />These little foundations had almost no role in shaping academic economics.<br /><br />The foundations spread ideas to the public, mostly non formal popular writings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-25556552378172793982010-06-02T03:44:11.039-04:002010-06-02T03:44:11.039-04:00I think of Kenneth Arrow as illustrating Greg'...I think of Kenneth Arrow as illustrating Greg's position. According to Mirowski's <i>Machine Dreams</i>, he did take defense money through his work at Rand. And Mirowski presents much of the work being done there as an answer to Hayek's socialist calculation argument.<br /><br />Institutionalism was an important alternative available at the time to such formalism. And institutionalism was engaged with many real issues in the economy. So I can see how one would think of formalism as a kind of quietism, a movement away from the left.<br /><br />I've been reading the Blundell reference I give in my post. It is triumphal bragging about successfully changing the climate of opinion to be more rightist. And you can see, if you read it, that there's something to these claims.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-39374166713017739822010-06-01T11:48:51.769-04:002010-06-01T11:48:51.769-04:00Most of the math economists of the 1950s were on t...Most of the math economists of the 1950s were on the left -- and they misled themselves into believing that the "givens" of their math constructs could be used by central planners.<br /><br />Read some history of economic thought.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532630855794099767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-62679871060840663672010-06-01T04:23:08.185-04:002010-06-01T04:23:08.185-04:00Mainstream foundations "turned increasingly l...Mainstream foundations "turned increasingly leftist over the decades"? Really? Which ones? <br /><br />"leftist math economists"? What, was the maths "leftist" or the economists? Which ones?<br /><br />"academic economics"? You mean, neo-classical Keynesian synthesis economics? Yes, that is really "leftist"...<br /><br />And after complaining about all the asserted but not proven funding by "foundations" and all those "leftist" economists, we get <b>"Let's stay in the realm of reality and not conspiracy or fantasy"</b>? Now that IS funny...<br /><br />Strange, though, that we have such a visceral rejection of applying "demand and supply" to the economics profession. Now, rich capitalists want to be "left-alone" to accumulate their wealth. We have a demand there, now are we expect there to be no supply? That would be market failure on a staggering level... <br /><br />Is that a conspiracy theory, applying supply and demand to economic ideology? It must just be a massive co-incidence that mainstream economics concludes that unions are bad, redistribution is bad, unemployment benefits are bad, and so on...<br /><br />Interestingly, John Kenneth Galbraith noted the impact of wealth on the economics profession back in 1972: <br /><br /><i>"Economic instruction in the United States is about a hundred years old. In its first half century economists were subject to censorship by outsiders. Businessmen and their political and ideological acolytes kept watch on departments of economics and reacted promptly to heresy, the latter being anything that seemed to threaten the sanctity of property, profits, a proper tariff policy and a balanced budget, or that suggested sympathy for unions, public ownership, public regulation or, in any organised way, for the poor."</i> [<b>The Essential Galbraith</b>, p. 135] <br /><br />The Great Depression did offer an opening for a wider economics to develop, which it did. However, Keynes was squeezed back into the neo-classical framework and the rise of Monetarism in the 1970s effectively closed that off to a large degree. Maybe the new crisis will open thing up a bit, again. <br /><br />Oh, but then again, there is Paul Krugman... He is a bit left-wing, so I take it all back :)<br /><br />Iain<br /><a href="http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk" rel="nofollow">An Anarchist FAQ</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-78331247148433876002010-05-30T23:07:07.453-04:002010-05-30T23:07:07.453-04:00This is what these organizations did NOT much prov...This is what these organizations did NOT much provide:<br /><br />"political interventions into academic economics"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532630855794099767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-65082900408925576712010-05-30T21:03:47.612-04:002010-05-30T21:03:47.612-04:00Private foundation money was miniscule and counted...Private foundation money was miniscule and counted for little as far as the guild structure of academic economics went -- lets be serious here.<br /><br />What mattered were the universities and the military & "science" money from the U.S. government -- which funded "math economics", mainstream left of center math economics.<br /><br />The "free market" foundations were small and didn't fund much basic research -- not anything which can be compared to the massive comparative funding source of the universities and the U.S. government.<br /><br />Let's stay in the realm of reality and not conspiracy or fantasy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532630855794099767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-56966491553934827782010-05-30T20:59:33.337-04:002010-05-30T20:59:33.337-04:00Robert -- the "free market" funding was ...Robert -- the "free market" funding was half pennies on the dollar compared to the "mainstream" foundations which turned increasingly leftist over the decades.<br /><br />And it can be argued that the stuff funded by Cowles and the Navy via Rand etc. was dominated by leftist math economists who were no friends of a genuine causal understanding of the functioning of markets of the sort that the best "free market" had achieved.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532630855794099767noreply@blogger.com