Tag Archives: History of Economics

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 theory of value and distribution is at the heart of economics. To be clear, when I say that it is at the center, it means that discussions of almost any topic in economics, in one way or another, depend on a certain theoretical position about the theory of value and distribution. However, most economists have no clue about it, about the centrality of value. Not only they don't understand the original and now infamous labor theory of value (LTV), that dominated between Petty and Ricardo...

Another one calling for paradigm shift.The National InterestAmerica Needs to Reexamine Its Wartime RelationshipsJohn Quiggin | Professor and an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland, and a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government

Interesting post. Michael Roberts argues that Keynes was all three–socialist, liberal and conservative at different times. But owing to his social status, Keynes was fundamentally a British upper-class conservative, or in Marxian terminology, a "bourgeois liberal." However, he was not hidebound and also had a sense of reality that made him open to accommodate changing circumstances.Michael Roberts BlogKeynes: socialist, liberal or conservative? Michael RobertsSee alsoThe Political Economy...

Some history of economics.Conversable EconomistOrigins of "Microeconomics" and "Macroeconomics"Timothy Taylor | Managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, based at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota

I  (Tom Hickey) recommend reading this paper now that "socialism" is the new buzz word. You may recall Professor Wolff from The Poverty of Liberalism, In Defense of Anarchy, and A Critique of Pure Tolerance (with Herbert Marcuse and Barrington Moore, Jr.), which were popular at the time of the "countercultural revolution" in the Sixties and Seventies. He also published scholarly works on Emmanuel Kant and Karl Marx. He blogs at The Philosopher's Stone, which I follow and occasionally offer...

So it was great that I had been invited to present the case for the contribution of Marxist economics, along with Carolina Alves, the Joan Robinson fellow at Girton College, Cambridge. In my presentation (see my PP here The contribution of Marxian economics), I outlined the differences in theory and policy, both micro and macro between mainstream neoclassical economics, the heterodox alternatives (Keynesian, post-Keynesian, institutional and Austrian) and the Marxist. I see this as three...

How do you write about a book that is almost 600 pages long (in small print), has 25 pages of references, and the ambition to explain political institutions from the dawn of mankind to the French Revolution, from kinship-based bands of hunters to Voltaire? This was Francis Fukuyama’s objective in this monumental (yet eminently readable) book, “The Origins of PoliticalOrder” (note the plural).My review, given the size and importance of the book, will be done in two parts, First, here, I...

This is a good historical backgrounder and it should be read for that reason alone. But Michael Roberts also brings up other issues that follow upon this history that are relevant to the current debate, at least some of which that have been brought up previously in the comments here. Highly recommended. As Maria Ivanova has shown, there remains a blind belief that the crisis-prone nature of the latter can be managed by means of ‘money artistry’, that is, by the manipulation of money,...

Branko Milanovic explains why Marx's historical analysis of socio-economic phenomena remains not only relevant but also preeminent, based on a few key insights. While he does not identify as a Marxist or even a Marxian, he credits the important influence of Marx on his thinking.There are no non-trivial economic phenomena that are not socio-economic, and Marx is the analyst that put his finger on the how and why. While it would be a mistake to dogmatize Marx, it would also be a great mistake...