"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences." T Piketty
It’s not only the obsession with tabulating. It’s the refusal to look at countervailing facts. In our advanced society I argue that at least a third of people are still ill clothed, ill fed, and ill housed.
The Federal Reserve and it's relationship to the government, especially with taxes subsidizing corporate profits, amounts to "credit for thee, but none for me." Ie the idea that we raise interest rates to abuse consumers but subsidize corporations with forceful extracting consumer paychecks.
Am I right to think the origin of the turn away from reality towards a priori premises and mathematical logic as means to construct economic theory began with the Austrian school which was reacting to what it perceived as the threat to capital of historicism and socialism?
+David Walsh Well, I would say that is a bold claim and you are being quite cynical but it is imaginable. It might also have been an attempt at wanting to be more logically consistent. Much like what Russel tried to do with mathematics.
+David Walsh Yes, I do realize that you repeated what was said in the video. I am just not completly sold on the arguments and the reference to Hume and Kant in this context made me cringe since Kant expressly denied the existence of a priori knowledge outside of ethics. + epistemologists today usually don't agree with Kant further the reference was completly unnecessary to discuss the topic. There were no claims being made that required more than deduction, there was no need for a debate about the nature of knowledge in this context.
+David Walsh "To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences." T. Piketty
The Paradox: Man is a Buyer, a Worker, a Taxpayer. What most FORGET they are is an "Investor". If Man has a retirement account that receives "gains" (pension, IRA, 401k, etc.). Everyone's retirement monies are tied up in Corporations and Banks. We give our contributions to proxy investors (Institional Investors), which are used to purchase stocks, bonds, preferred stock, etc. in Corporations/Banks. Therefore, these "gains" can only be made by raising the prices on "the Buyer" that man also is (even on those who are not investors). So we have the Investor side of man raising the price on the Buyer side of the SAME man. Who then complains about prices. Man complains about the very Corporations that he owns (via his retirement funds). It seems to me that Man's "future self" is stealing purchasing power from his "present self" (and everyone else that "buys"). When Man reaches his future plan (is retired), he finds himself to be 80% DEAD. It seems to me that if the purchasing power was left to its rightful owner, Man's Buyer side, then the unemployment, welfare, high taxes, and corporate inversions would be self regulated. There is no problem in investing, but investing for a "gain" is very destructive indeed. The very "inventive" for doing such a thing has created the world we live in. A Paradox between The Buyer and The Owner, who are One.
Maybe this is a bit too reductive... I have a slightly adjusted proposal: The individual is forced to participate in a system that pits them against their future selves, because to reject the system results in an almost perfect chance of complete failure. The individual is also forced to participate in the system as if it is a zero-sum game as they do not have enough control to incentivize collaborating with their future selves as someone else would immediately take advantage of their immediate state and drain the resources of both the current and future individual.
Only the most fortunate are investors. Although it is frequently trotted out that securities are owned by nearly 40% of the population in reality 10% of the population own 90%. So the extreme inequality of our society has resulted in most people being entirely left out of the “future self” scenario. And in that sense people who only earn wages but not dividends are “dead” even before they are born. This is the situation the 3rd world is today and arguably most people in the first world two, although there are tremendous “throw off” advantages to being in the first world.
Thats the core of boomers Me First attitude which birthed reagan trickle down economics and sold their children future for the process you just outlined. Congrats
What is different here?...textbook economics use maximization assumptions to derive relationships. Shaikh uses another set of assumptions to derive relationships. Anybody can use any assumptions to derive what they want...If the outcome of the model does not match the data, just change the assumptons until it fits. Everybody can do that. No assumption is wrong, right, or better. It just needs to fit the data...😂😂....maximization assumptions makes sense to me....why do we need another set of assumptions to get same old relationships? So now, it is a competition of assumptions...and just add some algebra and maths to it. Hehe....I can use my own assumptions to get same conclusion as solow...lol. Who needs solow model assumptions...😂
The difference here is the application of those assumptions across different levels of analysis. It’s very similar to physics. You can take the Newtonian assumptions and derive most of the physical relationships that impact us as human beings, but those assumptions fail under certain conditions. Then you introduce the assumptions from quantum mechanics and you find that all of the assumptions made by Newton still apply, but the model now does a much better job of matching reality up and down the different levels of analysis. Would you argue that quantum physics is not a worthy endeavour because we already have Newtonian physics which does a good enough job for our daily lives? That is equivalent to the argument you are making here regarding economics.
I know this is very late, but I think this is it: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/258737 This also seems relevant: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/258584
"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish
passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological
speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration
with the other social sciences."
T Piketty
It’s not only the obsession with tabulating. It’s the refusal to look at countervailing facts. In our advanced society I argue that at least a third of people are still ill clothed, ill fed, and ill housed.
The Federal Reserve and it's relationship to the government, especially with taxes subsidizing corporate profits, amounts to "credit for thee, but none for me."
Ie the idea that we raise interest rates to abuse consumers but subsidize corporations with forceful extracting consumer paychecks.
Am I right to think the origin of the turn away from reality towards a priori premises and mathematical logic as means to construct economic theory began with the Austrian school which was reacting to what it perceived as the threat to capital of historicism and socialism?
+David Walsh Well, I would say that is a bold claim and you are being quite cynical but it is imaginable.
It might also have been an attempt at wanting to be more logically consistent. Much like what Russel tried to do with mathematics.
TheHanspeter8
Did you listen to the interview?
+David Walsh Yes, I do realize that you repeated what was said in the video. I am just not completly sold on the arguments and the reference to Hume and Kant in this context made me cringe since Kant expressly denied the existence of a priori knowledge outside of ethics. + epistemologists today usually don't agree with Kant further the reference was completly unnecessary to discuss the topic. There were no claims being made that required more than deduction, there was no need for a debate about the nature of knowledge in this context.
+David Walsh
"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish
passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological
speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration
with the other social sciences."
T. Piketty
TheHanspeter8
I will get back to you on Kant etc
What is the point of economics when there is a printing machine bypassing the “work” section and going straight to the prize?
The Paradox: Man is a Buyer, a Worker, a Taxpayer. What most FORGET they are is an "Investor". If Man has a retirement account that receives "gains" (pension, IRA, 401k, etc.). Everyone's retirement monies are tied up in Corporations and Banks. We give our contributions to proxy investors (Institional Investors), which are used to purchase stocks, bonds, preferred stock, etc. in Corporations/Banks. Therefore, these "gains" can only be made by raising the prices on "the Buyer" that man also is (even on those who are not investors). So we have the Investor side of man raising the price on the Buyer side of the SAME man. Who then complains about prices. Man complains about the very Corporations that he owns (via his retirement funds). It seems to me that Man's "future self" is stealing purchasing power from his "present self" (and everyone else that "buys"). When Man reaches his future plan (is retired), he finds himself to be 80% DEAD. It seems to me that if the purchasing power was left to its rightful owner, Man's Buyer side, then the unemployment, welfare, high taxes, and corporate inversions would be self regulated. There is no problem in investing, but investing for a "gain" is very destructive indeed. The very "inventive" for doing such a thing has created the world we live in. A Paradox between The Buyer and The Owner, who are One.
O the irony
Maybe this is a bit too reductive... I have a slightly adjusted proposal:
The individual is forced to participate in a system that pits them against their future selves, because to reject the system results in an almost perfect chance of complete failure. The individual is also forced to participate in the system as if it is a zero-sum game as they do not have enough control to incentivize collaborating with their future selves as someone else would immediately take advantage of their immediate state and drain the resources of both the current and future individual.
Only the most fortunate are investors. Although it is frequently trotted out that securities are owned by nearly 40% of the population in reality 10% of the population own 90%. So the extreme inequality of our society has resulted in most people being entirely left out of the “future self” scenario. And in that sense people who only earn wages but not dividends are “dead” even before they are born. This is the situation the 3rd world is today and arguably most people in the first world two, although there are tremendous “throw off” advantages to being in the first world.
Thats the core of boomers Me First attitude which birthed reagan trickle down economics and sold their children future for the process you just outlined. Congrats
I find the audio too low.
Thanks.
Anwar illuminating as always
Good talk
Does anybody know how is Gary Becker's 1963 paper named?
I think it's this one, but I'm not sure...Becker, Gary S. 1962. “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy
Which book have u written sir? Can u plz tell the name of it.
What is different here?...textbook economics use maximization assumptions to derive relationships.
Shaikh uses another set of assumptions to derive relationships.
Anybody can use any assumptions to derive what they want...If the outcome of the model does not match the data, just change the assumptons until it fits. Everybody can do that.
No assumption is wrong, right, or better. It just needs to fit the data...😂😂....maximization assumptions makes sense to me....why do we need another set of assumptions to get same old relationships?
So now, it is a competition of assumptions...and just add some algebra and maths to it. Hehe....I can use my own assumptions to get same conclusion as solow...lol. Who needs solow model assumptions...😂
The difference here is the application of those assumptions across different levels of analysis.
It’s very similar to physics. You can take the Newtonian assumptions and derive most of the physical relationships that impact us as human beings, but those assumptions fail under certain conditions. Then you introduce the assumptions from quantum mechanics and you find that all of the assumptions made by Newton still apply, but the model now does a much better job of matching reality up and down the different levels of analysis.
Would you argue that quantum physics is not a worthy endeavour because we already have Newtonian physics which does a good enough job for our daily lives? That is equivalent to the argument you are making here regarding economics.
Anyone got a link to that 1963 article?
I know this is very late, but I think this is it: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/258737
This also seems relevant: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/258584