Seth Ackerman and Mike Beggs have an interesting article in
Jacobin. They note:Marginalist economics arose as a reaction against the analysis of class conflict in classical economics.
- Greg Mankiw's defense of the 1% is deeply muddled.
- The Arrow-Debreu model's use as a benchmark reflects a "broken" "belief system".
- Marx and Keynes developed different, but perhaps compatible views of political economy.
- Post Keynesians developed anti-neoclassical elements in Keynes'
theory and revived the surplus-based approach to political economy.I'll quote the last two paragraphs here:"But in the long run, radicals need something more from their economics.
Class conflict is at the heart of the capitalist economy and the
capitalist state, yet neoclassical economics will not acknowledge the
fact. How, then, should we think about economics as a discipline and the
question of inequality as its subject? At an individual level, there
are truly great economists working in the mainstream — some harboring
deeply humane instincts, and some even with good politics. As a body of
knowledge, economics yields a flood of invaluable empirical data and a
trove of sophisticated tools for thinking through discrete analytical
questions.But as a vision of capitalist society, mainstream economics is simply
hollow at its core — and the hollow place has been filled up with a
distorted bourgeois ideology that does nothing but impede our
understanding of the social world."
No comments:
Post a Comment