Comments on: Random Finds in Heterodox Economics, #1

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:28:45 +0000

Heh, I figured you two would know each other, being the only two lefty non-economists that I know of online who know enough about economics to aim well-placed criticisms at it.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:57:14 +0000

Whooohooo! Robert Vienneau reads this blog!

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:58:13 +0000

Sorry, that last link on computability in economics should be as here.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:52:00 +0000

I wrote the first page turned up by a Google search on Cambridge Capital Controversy. In an act of shameless self-promotion, I might as well point out that I have other resources on the CCC, catalogued under “Publications For Fun” on my page. My “Choice of Technique” spreadsheet, “Sraffian Interpretation of Marx” html page, “Reswitching and the Cambridge Capital Controversy” html page, “Critique of Disaggregated Neoclassical Theory” pdf file, “On Labor Demand and Equilibria of the Firm” pdf file, and “Choice Of Technique for a Firm” html page are all about aspects of the CCC. Dan is being generous in only saying that the CCC shows mistaken work with aggregate production functions. Look at Gehrke and Lager on Sraffian Political Economy. They say the CCC also destroys HOS trade theory, the neoclassical of tax incidence, and Pigouvian tax theory. My explanations are more narrowly focused on price theory. The CCC is hard to get a grip on. Just as you think you’ve worked out most ways it can be viewed, somebody comes along and tells you it’s about something else, for example, computability in economics. As far as I can tell, mainstream economists teach nonsense partly because those who have used the CCC to expose the nonsense are the sorts who take Marx seriously, whether they agree or disagree with him.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:29:26 +0000

Dave, Mike: I thought I’d be able to provide a link to my critique of the CAPM on D^2D but it appears that I never wrote it. Should be something along these lines next week; a critique of CAPM is at the heart of my case against top-up fees in the UK. Basically, I don’t like the identification of risk with variance around a mean, and I’m a sceptic about correlations.

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:11:27 +0000

Ah ha, that Harcourt thing is finally online. It’s excellent. The first thing capital-reversing brings to mind is oil prices…..

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:02:59 +0000

I’ll second the request for more detail on the CAPM. Perhaps there is a more technical bone to pick, but over the last decade or so I haven’t seen any reason not to believe in “you picks (one hopes efficiently) your risk aversion and you takes your chances”.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:12:18 +0000

Good post, PG. I agreed with all of it except for your support of unions. Bah, unions!

By: PG

PG — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:40:37 +0000

The peanut gallery pipes up with an Indo-centric understanding of trade and labor economics.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:55:36 +0000

Mike, do a search on Google for the Cambridge Capital Controversy. It’s difficult to summarize the controversy briefly, and understanding the controversy itself requires a fairly technical understanding of economic theory. I don’t even understand most of the issues involved, and I’ve read quite a bit on the topic.

By: mike d

mike d — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:18:16 +0000

wow… it’s rare that such a long piece by D-squared will result in such silence from the peanut gallery. I’ll bite, however, and ask for a brief summary behind I think that GE is a dead duck and so is the CAPM or at least some links to dispell my ignorance…

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:50:31 +0000

Here is an article on the Camridge Capital Controversy, in which the author summarizes some of the views of others, such as Deirdre McCloskey's literary criticism approach of economics as metaphor creation, and presents some linguistic anwers of his own. As for economic analyses of the Middle East, I wrote an article for a general interest webmag summarizing one of Tyler Cowen pieces, and I think it is fairly objective.