tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post8796677013214823944..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Paul Romer Gyring In A Cul-De-SacRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-48400063381389691812018-10-09T00:46:50.930-04:002018-10-09T00:46:50.930-04:00This Romer is often suggested as being eligible fo...This Romer is often suggested as being eligible for a Nobel prize, for his work on endogenous growth, particularly Romer (1990). I'll be amused when and if he gets it.<br /><br />AUGUST 27, 2015 6:15 AM<br /><br />I guess you're amused...Joe Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13214985617668875827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-90805839071045695842015-11-27T17:04:03.451-05:002015-11-27T17:04:03.451-05:00«Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's po...«Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's post:<br /><br />«"an aggregate production function might lend support for a marginal productivity theory of the distribution of income,"»<br /><br />As it shows very clearly that P Romer is very aware that the core issue is the central truthiness of Economics, and that hallucinatory neoclassical talkiness of «an aggregate production» is meant to support that central truthiness.»<br /><br />«Looking at the systems of equations that have been proven to be solvable they don't actually match the usual "talkiness" side of neoclassical economics, they describe "something" that is far simpler.»<br /><br />Note that here I was just repeating what P Samuelson and F Hahn and other neoclassicals acknowledged during the Cambridges Capital Controversy, as I have summarized by quotes in my comments to a later post:<br /><br />http://robertvienneau.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/herbert-scarf-1930-2015.html<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-13678766544612544462015-10-09T08:45:46.933-04:002015-10-09T08:45:46.933-04:00Thank you for your craven expression of interest i...Thank you for your craven expression of interest in the opinions of commentators.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-55960743937067847042015-10-08T13:30:52.198-04:002015-10-08T13:30:52.198-04:00Quite a collection of morons you've assembled ...Quite a collection of morons you've assembled here, Bob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-9856080741789880692015-09-07T14:20:36.230-04:002015-09-07T14:20:36.230-04:00Said differently, the various people who "pro...Said differently, the various people who "proved" that "the neoclassical theory" has a unique optimal equilibrium under which income is determined solely by productivity did not take "the neoclassical theory" and wrote it up in equations and then proved that.<br /><br />That's far too hard :-).<br /><br />What they did is something that you by now should be familiar with, as it is a standard technique in Economics (and other subjects) to get a paper out with big sounding (until one looks at the assumptions) results: they kept adjusting a set of equations clipping away the "hard" bits until they could find a set of equations for which they could prove "equilibrium".<br /><br />The resulting equations are not a model for "the neoclassical theory", unless it is decided to redefine the term "the neoclassical theory" as the theory described by that set of equations, but that's even bigger sophistry.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-63622954420714631182015-09-07T14:00:33.608-04:002015-09-07T14:00:33.608-04:00«A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not...«A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not a statement about actually existing economies. It merely says that a certain set of equations, inequalities, or whatever is consistent.»<br /><br />But the question is not whether the proof is of equilibrium of actually existing economies, it is whether the proof is of equilibrium in actually existing neoclassical theories. The equations in the various "proofs" of equilibrium are not those for recognizable neoclassical theories, but for very simplified versions of them. Since the solvability of the equations depends critically on many subtle assumptions, proving those equations have a solutions does not imply that any or most neoclassical theories have an equilibrium...<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-87077693601024523532015-08-27T06:26:01.037-04:002015-08-27T06:26:01.037-04:00A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not ...A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not a statement about actually existing economies. It merely says that a certain set of equations, inequalities, or whatever is consistent.<br /><br />Von Neumann provided such a proof shortly after Wald. And Von Neumann's model had certain family resemblances to Sraffa's.<br /><br />Thanks for the reference to Chaim Perelman. I probably will not read it, since I think Romer's scientism is not argued for much these days among philosophers of science. Those who agree with me that there's room among scholars for non-fully arguments are probably on Simon Wren-Lewis side <a href="http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-sense-of-identity.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, at least for this point.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-49860624237544452602015-08-27T06:20:17.834-04:002015-08-27T06:20:17.834-04:00I find that Paul Romer was, at once time, that Hah...I find that Paul Romer was, at once time, that Hahn and Solow had backed upped their derision for macro following Lucas with solid analysis, as mathematical as you please. That is, Romer wrote a cover blurb for Hahn and Solow (1995).<br />Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-72151986550846569192015-08-27T06:15:24.458-04:002015-08-27T06:15:24.458-04:00This Romer is often suggested as being eligible fo...This Romer is often suggested as being eligible for a Nobel prize, for his work on endogenous growth, particularly Romer (1990). I'll be amused when and if he gets it.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-66027965196045789972015-08-22T05:42:52.116-04:002015-08-22T05:42:52.116-04:00«Romer's comments about "talkiness" ...«Romer's comments about "talkiness" are silly.»<br /><br />Again, especially because neoclassical Economics, as in Arrow-Debreu-Lucas, is entirely "talkiness" and the "mathyness" that accompanies it does not match the "talkiness". It is all just sophistry.<br /><br />«I would be embarrassed to dismiss a scholar like Fernand Braudel on the grounds that he did not put forth mathematical models, as in physics.»<br /><br />There is a much bigger topic here that unfortunately seems very little known and yet is exceptionally important and an european philosopher, Chaim Perelman, has been writing about it in a good way.<br /><br />The issue he describes is that the rise of cartesian rationalism has created a situation where all discussions that cannot be handled with the cartesian method as pure talk. That is the assumption that either a topic can be discussed "scientifically" or it is complete bullshit.<br /><br />Which means that "scientifically" becomes a big talking point, and that discussions that are not purely bullshit but are not purely scientific either get lumped in with those that are mostly or entirely bullshit.<br /><br />That means surrendering too many topics that cannot be conclusively proven to deliver "scientific truth" to purely irrational discussion.<br /><br />The solution he describes is to resurrect "rhetoric" as a philosophical device, rather than a propaganda tool: that is to admit that there is a third category between the "provable truth" of the scientific method, and the "worthless bullshit" at the other end, and it is what I would call "persuasive even if not conclusive arguments".<br /><br />Rhetoric is then the set techniques that allow of constructing persuasive arguments where possible, even if the conclusions are uncertain, because *action* cannot be simply always guided by proven scientific truth, and should not be guided by arbitrary irrationality in every other case.<br /><br />The arguments of F Braudel as to history are an example of "rhetoric" well deployed: he does not write mathematical models, he does not prove the truth of his explanations, but supports them with persuasive interpretations and corroborating evidence he presents. His conclusions are uncertain for sure but they are not arbitrary, and it is then a call of judgement of the audience reading them as to how much to believe them.<br /><br />Put another way, Chaim Perelman makes the seemingly obvious argument that between hard scientific truth that can be proven with some accuracy, and arbitrary irrational bullshit about which nothing can be said either way, there should be a recognized category of well-founded persuasive judgement to which assign different weights of applicability.<br /><br />That is a very important argument.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-16356912980314374562015-08-22T05:12:15.791-04:002015-08-22T05:12:15.791-04:00Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's pos...Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's post:<br /><br />«"an aggregate production function might lend support for a marginal productivity theory of the distribution of income,"»<br /><br />As it shows very clearly that P Romer is very aware that the core issue is the central truthiness of Economics, and that hallucinatory neoclassical talkiness of «an aggregate production» is meant to support that central truthiness.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-18984018274889582762015-08-22T05:08:53.037-04:002015-08-22T05:08:53.037-04:00«the first rigorous proof of the existence of a ge...«the first rigorous proof of the existence of a general equilibrium»<br /><br />There is no such thing! And I am surprised that you fall for claims that it has been done, given your attention to the tricks of the the trade.<br /><br />General equilibrium models formalizing neoclasssical Economics *cannot* be proven to have a general equilibrium because they are both mathematically and semantically broken, they have no valid solutions, they just don't work.<br /><br />The various published "proofs" of the existence of general equilibrium are misleading: they are simply proofs that certain artfully constructed systems of equations are solvable.<br /><br />The confusion that those systems of equations that have been specifically shaped to be solvable are proofs that general equilibrium happens in neoclassical Economics is given by simple devices like giving labels like "price", "quantity", "capital", "labor" to various quantities in them, as if the equations were a mathematical formalization of the neoclassical handwaving model.<br /><br />Looking at the systems of equations that have been proven to be solvable they don't actually match the usual "talkiness" side of neoclassical economics, they describe "something" that is far simpler.<br /><br />Note: I think that the first case where a rigorously well defined neoclassical model that could be meaningfully said to achieve general equilibrium was created was by P Sraffa in the "commodities by means of commodities" line, and he did that specifically to explore whether even a very simplified neoclassical model worked in the way the neoclassical claimed, stripping away the "talkiness", and the answer was that it did not.<br /><br />P Romer's argument are particularly ironic given that neoclassical Economics is essentially just "talkiness", as it involves handwaving into existence imaginary things like "capital", "infinite markets", "perfect competition with one representative agent", "smooth aggregate demand functions" etc., and then creating mathy-looking systems of equations that don't actually correspond to the "talkiness".<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-17463440636582497542015-08-21T18:46:27.217-04:002015-08-21T18:46:27.217-04:00Cripes, now there's a Paul Romer?
Does econom...Cripes, now there's a Paul Romer?<br /><br />Does economics really need ANOTHER Ro(e)mer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com