tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post5440155753626894057..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: What is "neoclassical" economics?Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-84107591505586189042013-07-03T21:59:36.323-04:002013-07-03T21:59:36.323-04:00Mr Moody, is that you?Mr Moody, is that you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72125949403663191992013-06-29T18:39:28.292-04:002013-06-29T18:39:28.292-04:00While you are still free to claim that this or thi...While you are still free to claim that this or this paper is not neoclassical in its nature, I would say that you´d be wrong almost always. That´s because you (and Wikipedia) have the wrong, in my opinion, definition of what is neoclassical economics. Even though Kuhn´s theory does pretty good, I´d say that Lakatos is clearer. You are defining neoclassical by its protective belt and, as you should know, you can get away from it without leaving the research program. You don´t need to say a word about those things (individual rationality, utility maximization, and supply/demand...) and still be neoclassical. What defines it is the underlying logic.<br />On more concrete ground, you seem to make a methodological mistake when you put empirical research on a different classification. Empirical research is always, very, full of theoretical propositions. Of course you won´t find the neoclassical market description in a empirical paper, but that doesn´t mean it isn´t neoclassical in its logic.<br />Congratulations nonetheless. You are one of the few keeping the debate alive, don´t stop it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12038254356199899746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-19712401474470327992013-06-21T16:25:53.924-04:002013-06-21T16:25:53.924-04:00I am not sure the percentage could be a good pictu...I am not sure the percentage could be a good picture of number of theory papers. Has the total number of theory papers gone up or done relative to how many economics professors there are. If the productivity of professors making empirical papers increases all other things equal won't theory papers make up less of a share of journals.Brendan Perrinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974887905269816424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5428744540196675152013-06-21T05:29:46.650-04:002013-06-21T05:29:46.650-04:00Udsmykning med mærkevarer og et attraktivt ur er i...Udsmykning med mærkevarer og et attraktivt ur er i dag ganske vigtigt. I disse tider er man vidne til at folk bliver mere mode og stil bevidst og et armbåndsur virker i denne henseende som en forbedring. Mange urmærker, fremstiller mange forskellige urmodeller, der passer til forskellige smag hos os forbrugerer.ur damehttp://www.urbyen.dk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-82148038341063599232013-06-21T05:29:09.175-04:002013-06-21T05:29:09.175-04:00Thank you for sharing this very nice post, please ...Thank you for sharing this very nice post, please keep continue the sharing of this types of information. Here we are waiting for moreur damehttp://www.urbyen.dk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76107461477401364122013-06-20T16:14:53.424-04:002013-06-20T16:14:53.424-04:00>>But does it describe most of maintstream e...>>But does it describe most of maintstream economics research? Theory papers have declined from over half of top-journal econ papers in 1963 to less than 28% in 2011. Empirical papers make up most of the rest, with experimental economics growing to just over 8%.<<<br /><br />What percent of those theory papers are non-neoclassical? <br /><br />0%? 1%? 5%? <br /><br />>>How many of those empirical papers should be described as "neoclassical"? Some of them, no doubt. Some of them explicitly include neoclassical models; others test neoclassical theories developed in other papers.<<<br /><br />Of the empirical papers that test theory, what percent of them test non-neoclassical theory? <br /><br />0%? 1%? 5%? <br /><br />It's possible you have a point here, but so far the argument as you've presented it is fatuous. If they always reach for neoclassical theory when it's time for them to consider theory, then mainstream economics is clearly neoclassical, even if much of the work is empirical. The empirical work is floating in a background of one single overarching methodology that brooks no competition. <br /><br />You even admit yourself that when it's finally time for you to reach for theory, you reach for neoclassical theory, and in the comments you explicitly admit that you do so in order to more easily communicate with others, which lends yet more evidence to the notion that inside the realm of mainstream theory, there is no real alternative to the neoclassical framework. <br /><br />This makes you a neoclassical. If you reach for neoclassical theory whenever it's time for you to reach for theory, then that's what you are. You can only dodge a label if it truly doesn't apply. If you genuinely feel this doesn't accurately characterize you, then it would help make your case if you could tell us of any heterodox theoretical work you've done. If you feel that neoclassical theory doesn't have a stranglehold, then you need to provide evidence on the percentage of theory papers that present an alternate viewpoint.<br /><br />I'm not saying you can't possibly do this. I genuinely don't know. But you clearly haven't even begun to make your case here.Hellestalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70332569267069195602013-06-19T14:49:01.670-04:002013-06-19T14:49:01.670-04:00Krugman describes himself as kind of an equilibriu...Krugman describes himself as kind of an equilibrium, utility maximization kind of guy. You paint yourself as someone dissatisfied with the mainstream yet you are willing to give credence to neoclassical approaches who’s basic assumptions are empirically false, have extremely poor correlation to real world data and virtually nil predictive power and yet you dismiss the various hetrodox approaches with wilful abandon.<br /> <br />Krugman is a neoclassical dressed up as a Keynesian, you are a neoclassical dressed up as a hetrodox. Both neoclassicals in drag, if you will. The result is the same and a sad indictment of economics.<br /> <br />Moreover you seem to have turned in to a kind of attack dog for establishment economics, excusing them for missing the crisis and lauding them when they put down alternative views. Emboldened by your beloved Krug-tron giving you 'props' on his blog you have directly attacked those with alternative views such as Graeber and especially Keen. Ad hominem attacks replete with straw men, deliberate misreading and obfuscation that would make even Friedman blush.<br /> <br />You might be clever Noah Smith but clever does not mean right, and I mean that in the empirical and the moral sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093282421110793824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53036613715286845762013-06-19T03:26:20.129-04:002013-06-19T03:26:20.129-04:00I don't agree with everything in this article ...I don't agree with everything in this article but I believe that it has a valid point about the counterproductive nature of labeling and counterlabeling. Heterodox economics is wide ranging- the Marxists criticise neoclassical economics for its acceptance of property (Lebowitz for example, arguing that neoclassical economics is the study of how individuals make decisions with regard to their property)while many others don't see either the assumption of individual decision making or acceptance towards property rights as a problem, some heterodox economists argue against private monopolies while others accept them as a part of creative destruction. Similarly, differences exist as to the determination of the value of money and the role of monetary policy as also the question of microfoundations to macroeconomics. <br /><br />Nonetheless, the wars of labelling and counter labelling happen because some schools of thought are marginalised -for example, Post Keynesian models are barely taught outside certain universities. Similarly, Kondratiev cycles, questions of political economy, even the school of thought that believes models must come out of empirical work rather than the other way round are usually dismissed -and often, in a way that isn't convincing. Marxian models -despite being very, very relevant, are completely dished and rarely ever taught in classrooms. <br /><br />Given this, there is a mushrooming of "heterodox" schools as there is a desire to explore questions that are marginalised elsewhere. This gives the schools an identity of their own and they preserve it by distinguishing themselves from the neoclassical schools -often by giving less or no emphasis to "neoclassical" literature.It's a polarisation and polarisations aren't pretty. Ruchira Senhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370526466368481013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-3968245438077156122013-06-18T10:51:03.280-04:002013-06-18T10:51:03.280-04:00Dear Mark Chandler,
This post was about neoclassi...Dear Mark Chandler,<br /><br />This post was about neoclassical economics, not neoliberal philosophy. The two are distinct.<br /><br />Yours truly,<br /><br />Someone who bothered to read the postprometheefeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81299140017775503092013-06-18T08:38:25.840-04:002013-06-18T08:38:25.840-04:00This seems unlikely. Adam Smith presents a labour ...This seems unlikely. Adam Smith presents a labour theory of value in The Wealth of Nations, and he was a big fan of free markets(though I don't recall him ever using the word "capitalism"). <br />That and from memory Marx's theories also struck me as being based on rational actors, each class acting as it was compelled to do by its place in history. Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57008080350761636742013-06-18T05:21:07.277-04:002013-06-18T05:21:07.277-04:00NK reject money neutrality in the short run, not t...NK reject money neutrality in the short run, not the long run, quoting Krugman for the old days of less than a week ago:<br /><br />"Or to put it differently, you do want somehow to make clear the notion (which even fairly Keynesian guys like me share) that money is neutral in the long run."<br /><br />http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/a-sad-story-i-mean-as-ad-story-wonkish/Luis Augustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574787433969840143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49916318660382495532013-06-17T12:01:40.454-04:002013-06-17T12:01:40.454-04:00The update version of that Varoufakis article: htt...The update version of that Varoufakis article: http://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/neoclassical-economics-as-a-most-peculiar-failure.pdfhelvetius66https://www.blogger.com/profile/11600101196649381122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90439793197502106982013-06-17T01:11:41.195-04:002013-06-17T01:11:41.195-04:00Yes Tom,you on to something.One thing i regonised ...Yes Tom,you on to something.One thing i regonised as both economic historian and economist,are that the so called "mainstream" was much more open for what we now call hetereodox ideas lets say roughly before around 1945-50.There was not the same<br />sing a long homogen group as nowadays.A maverick like Schumpeter could teach at Harvard along with a John Galbraith and even a Paul Sweezy.I can´t see that such is even thinkabel today!Even radical marxist as Oscar Lange teached at Chicago fo such as Friedman,and Friedman was doctoral advisor to the radical Andre Gunder Frank ust mention a few.I come to think about your topic philosophy,i see a lot bright Philosophy professors,but in my view not the real exceptional pathfinding original philosophers.Like a Sartre or all the other from Frankfurt Sorbonne, Marburg ,Heidelberg or Chicago etc. I maybee wrong but now it is technical skilled,but very dull conformism that matter.I can´t say that i see a progress in that Ken Rogoff and his clones occupy Harvard instead of Schumpeter,Galbraith or Sweezy,even if he learn to handle excel data and with no doubt is very bright.I can´t see the progress,but maybee i just to god damn out of touch of todays reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59394255873687325302013-06-17T01:05:41.651-04:002013-06-17T01:05:41.651-04:00Noah, did you take macroeconomics?
Whoa! Now that...<i>Noah, did you take macroeconomics?</i><br /><br />Whoa! Now that you mention it, no I didn't! I knew there was something I had forgotten to do...<br /><br /><i>NeoClassical</i><br /><br />seriousness of commenter = f(inappropriate capitalization), where f'(*)<0Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49417412175476748382013-06-16T20:15:10.150-04:002013-06-16T20:15:10.150-04:00Noah, this Roy Weintraub piece is particularly abo...Noah, this Roy Weintraub piece is particularly about critiques of formalism, but it hits upon the same things concerning you I think.<br /><br />http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/Preprints/Giorgio%20Israel%202005%20Seminar%20Short%20Polemic.pdf Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20093289447948638862013-06-16T20:00:06.108-04:002013-06-16T20:00:06.108-04:00Noah, did you take macroeconomics? This post and t... Noah, did you take macroeconomics? This post and the first 15 or so comments seem to reveal a very shallow understanding of macroeconomics. Classical economics involves the theories of the early 19th and 20th century economist who sincerely believed in the classical dichotomy of nominal and real variables. That is to say that they believed that nominal variables had no effect on real ones. Keynes and mid century economists stressed that prices are relatively fixed in the short run and that markets wouldn't immediately adjust prices to increases in demand. NeoClassical economists on the other hand see a smaller role for government and monetary policy since they theorize that prices adjust too quickly for meaningful deviations from the long run, full employment, level of output. If you understand these things you should be able to spot a neoclassicist a mile away. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46727553131481590052013-06-16T19:03:33.241-04:002013-06-16T19:03:33.241-04:00Neoclassical economics posited marginalism and rat...Neoclassical economics posited marginalism and rational actors as an alternative explanation to Marx's labor theory of value, which, unchallenged, threatened the moral authority which capitalism bestowed upon itself. That the models of neoclassical economics can neither predict nor explain economic phenomena is the elephant in the room, but, boy, is it ever a well-appointed and comfy room, so what rational actor wants to notice the elephant?two beersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35917033944704080912013-06-16T18:55:47.029-04:002013-06-16T18:55:47.029-04:00Why? Neoclassical is a (spurious) school of (erron...Why? Neoclassical is a (spurious) school of (erroneous) economics. Neoliberalsim is (bad) economic policy based on the aforementioned neoclassical economics.two beersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-26839198151053346382013-06-16T18:06:18.455-04:002013-06-16T18:06:18.455-04:00From my understanding--though correct me if I'...From my understanding--though correct me if I'm wrong--the "classical" in neoclassical is because the school of thought reincorporates some of the classical cost of production analysis in with marginalism. So both consumer preferences and costs of production exert their effect. This is one of the differences with the Austrian school, which rejects objective, marginal cost analysis. In Man, Economy, and State Rothbard is adamant that objective cost analysis is spurious as everything traces back to marginal utilities; therefore, prices are determined by consumer demand schedules given a stock of goods: period. zsignalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17390269684041956979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76372009385964336972013-06-16T17:56:47.225-04:002013-06-16T17:56:47.225-04:00I wish there was a thumbs down button for Marc Cha...I wish there was a thumbs down button for Marc Chandler's comment. After the first sentence it's just rambling.zsignalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17390269684041956979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15296327057943779362013-06-16T16:56:00.173-04:002013-06-16T16:56:00.173-04:00What exactly from 1-4 doesn't apply to New Key...<i>What exactly from 1-4 doesn't apply to New Keynesians Noah?</i><br /><br />Number 1. New Keynesians believe that money is non-neutral.<br /><br /><i>I'm pretty sure you know NK and NC accept all of that, are you being misleading on purpose?</i><br /><br />Do you come from a land where almost everyone is a giant asshole, and being intentionally misleading is standard practice? Because where I come from, being intentionally misleading is a rare behavior.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-83048082589432541532013-06-16T16:36:54.902-04:002013-06-16T16:36:54.902-04:00What exactly from 1-4 doesn't apply to New Key...What exactly from 1-4 doesn't apply to New Keynesians Noah? I'm pretty sure you know NK and NC accept all of that, are you being misleading on purpose?Luis Augustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574787433969840143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69590984461594126922013-06-16T01:15:38.142-04:002013-06-16T01:15:38.142-04:00Greg: New Classical refers to a specific school of...Greg: New Classical refers to a specific school of neoclassical economics. Think of Robert Lucas. Many neoclassical economists differ from him greatly. 'Neo' and 'new" refer to much more than their immediate definitions in this contextAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35972632300606447412013-06-15T17:32:28.035-04:002013-06-15T17:32:28.035-04:00Hehe...that's up next...Hehe...that's up next...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55114714124353620842013-06-15T16:57:49.741-04:002013-06-15T16:57:49.741-04:00Yeah, I guess you're right. It's a common ...Yeah, I guess you're right. It's a common language shared by economists. <br /><br />By the way, when're you gonna do your "behavioural finance as the real revolution" post?<br /><br />If you don't do it soon, I'm gonna beat you to it!Aziznoreply@blogger.com