« Marxists & Libertarians | Main | Limits of marginal productivity theory »

April 16, 2016


Paddy Carter

so this word is used to describe both extreme free-market ideologues and erm .. Brad De Long.


i agree with Herbert Gintis:



@sam - Umm..its very suprising that Herbet Gintis would consider Mirowski taking this so-called postmodernist view of science. Any brief history or beginner's reading of neoclassical economics will show you that the whole discipline is unredeemable. It has time and time again been proven wrong on various fronts, very recently by Anwar Shaikh from new york's New School of Social Research who defines it as a religion. Yet, neoclassical economists do not accept this and use dirty and seedy tactics to not only keep their discipline alive but to make sure it has political influence and a say in shaping society and keep out other economic disciplines that can benefit society and have done proper research. A brief look at Paul Krugman's extremely childish or might I say bullying behaviour during the early 90s when NAFTA was being ratified and his stance now on it explains it. And this is a 'nobel' laureate we are talking about here. Not to forget the rather shady history of the nobel prize in economics.
Rational actors, equilibrium modelling, loanable funds, Black Scholes,everybody with half a mind uncorrupted by neoclassical woo-woo knows its smelly stuff of the highest order. The fact that it still has such powerful influence on the discpline, in universities and in policy circles will anger anyone with a sense of justice. And hence I think Mirowski's tone is right. Disproving their theories wont work because it never has.

As for what is Herbert Gintis is doing in this review, I think, is akin to scavenging out tiny unburnt pieces from a burnt dish and consoling himself that atleast these parts are well cooked.


Might I suggest that you try this lecture to give you an idea of how terrible of a discpline atleast neoclassical economics is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfbVPDNl7V4


I'm good, thanks. All Shaikh, Mirowski and all these other old cranks who rail against 'neoclassical economics' accomplish is creating smug complacency in ignorance of economics. Some economics is great and some not-so-great. I trust myself to tell the difference. And I've read enough empty take-downs for one lifetime.

Deviation From The Mean

Stalin was keen to ferment competition between regions when it came to steel and grain production. He also encouraged competition within Gosplan. The view was that abundance would eventually eradicate competition, as we know it.

So I think we can very easily compare central planners with CEO's. I would say CEO's are central planners but instead of having a national interest they have a personal interest. So CEO's are probably worse.

Bob - you could never be an ally could you? You equate wealthy people setting up a shell offshore company, using financial experts and accounting trickery to achieve direct tax evasion with someone on the average wage who turns up to work and uses a computer.

Seriously, this is so off the scale and in the la la land, how else can we react? If reason is the impossibility of reason, you are the Devil!


@sam - Ok. But then I'm confused as to how you reconcile absurd concepts such as homo economicus or rationality with what happens in the real world. I'm also interested in knowing what you'd think is a substantial critique(apart from Gintis') in economics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad