Tag Archives: conventional economics

There are more issues with David Ricardo's theory of trade than Miles Corak observes, but it highlights an important one. Worth a read. To summarize, Ricardo built a toy model that is useful for thinking a simplified level but it is too simplistic to useful as a model for the actual practice of political economy. Miles Corak points out that failure of trade specialists, not to mention economists that don't specialize in trade, can be traced to their being overly influenced by...

So just a brief comment on the latest fiasco from ‘Mr Spreadsheet’ Kenneth Rogoff as he stares into the abyss of irrelevance and is trying to hand on like grim death to any shred of credibility. He has none. If he ever did, the spreadsheet scandal finished it. But he never did anyway.... Bill Mitchell – billy blogThe old guard trying to stay relevant and failingBill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of...

Rather than attempt to explain what the mainly neoclassical economists are going on about, I want to step back and try to translate their debate into terms that would be understood by people who do not share the same assumptions. I am pretty sure that post-Keynesian economists have a lot to say about the topic as well, but once again, they tend to be discussing wonkish points that would elude an outsider.…I have an engineering background, and engineering is largely the science of...

It's about mathematical economics and its limitations. Don't let the title scare you off. Not at all wonkish (no math), although it helps if have some background in the controversy.Basically, it's Plato (formalism) versus Aristotle (empiricism). Most mathematicians today are Platonists, while most scientists are Aristotelians. But that is another story.Lars P. Syll’s BlogArrow-Debreu and the Bourbaki illusion of rigour Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

The problem is not so much with the modeling, actually. People are free to construct any models that please for whatever reason. The problem is with the conclusions that are drawn from the model when they exceed the limitations of the of the assumptions.This is not a problem with modeling but with logic. Drawing conclusions that exceed the scope and scale of the premises in a context other than the model is flat out illogical, and any inferences drawn on this basis are unsound, that is, do...

Traditional economic theory is rooted in a 19th- and 20th-century understanding of science and mathematics. At the simplest level, traditional theory assumes economies are linear systems filled with rational actors who seek to optimize their situation. Outputs reflect a sum of inputs, the system is closed, and if big change comes it comes as an external shock. The system’s default state is equilibrium. The prevailing metaphor is a machine. But this is not how economies are. It never has...

I have been a "China is unlikely to keep its model going for more than another five years—a decade tops" perma-bear since 1988. All I understand is that I do not understand the Chinese economy. I wish I did understand it: Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman: R.I.P. Chinese Exceptionalism?: "Over the past few decades, China’s growth has appeared to violate certain fundamental laws of economics.... China’s debt keeps on rising.... For any normal country, the build-up of extensive surplus...

Recommended reading on the history and philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, and Milton Friedman's instrumentalism.EvonomicsEconomists Should Stop Defending Milton Friedman’s Pseudo-science George H. Blackford | former Chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Michigan-Flint

This is Part 3 (and final) of my series responding to an iNET claim that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and mainstream macroeconomics were essentially at one in the way they understand the economy but differ on matters of which policy instrument (fiscal or monetary) to assign to counter stabilisation duties. In Part 1, I demonstrated how the core mainstream macroeconomic concepts bear no correspondence with the core MMT concepts, so it was surprising that someone would try to run an argument...

This is Part 2 of a three-part response to an iNET article (September 6, 2018) – Mainstream Macroeconomics and Modern Monetary Theory: What Really Divides Them?. In Part 1, I considered what we might take to the core body of mainstream macroeconomics and used the best-selling textbook from Gregory Mankiw as the representation. The material in that textbook is presented to students around the world as the current state of mainstream economic theory. While professional papers and policy...