An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
I read a lot of the stuff he's referring to and I see the word "neoliberal" more often than neoclassical - so in short I have no idea what he's talking about.
There is no definitive meaning of either neoliberal or neoclassical.
I use the terms this way:
Neoliberalism is a political ideology, stemming from Hayek founding of the Mont Pelerin Society. It's basis is the view that govt intrusion in the market economy leads inevitably to socialism and totalitarianism.
Neoliberalism is the political theory of the market state as opposed to the welfare state advocated by Keynesians.
Neoliberals spun the term "welfare state" to mean the dole rather than the original meaning which is the domestic purpose of govt to promote the general welfare, as in the preamble to the US Constitution.
Neoliberalism is based on neoclassical economics and Austrian economics, which posit that the "free market" is the basis for optimal resource allocation (Pareto optimality), where "free market" means minimal to no govt intrusion.
Been that way for decades now [and now I finished your comment I think we said the same thing in differing words]
Though I do believe in the US there are attempts to make it mean something else.
Anyway virtually the same discussion has been had previously on Crooked Timber - http://crookedtimber.org/2011/06/06/neo-and-post/
Also have people seen Lars Syll's response: https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/what-is-neoclassical-economics-a-rejoinder-to-noahpinion/
I really don't see any substance in Noah's comments other than politicking - the Heterodox lot are the bad guys. It's like the rich people saying poor people are committing class warfare. Its framing that gets the suckers.
The irony is astounding when I read someone say "Interesting noahpinion post on the way some "heterodox" economists perpetuate their own marginalisation"
additionally I never hear neoclassical but the term is fine to define the current orthodoxy which is what we get in the press.
Perhaps this is just part of the fighting stage of the quote attributed to Schopenhauer (that no one can find a proper reference to) “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
7 comments:
I notice Noah has a tendency not to respond to comments which strongly challenge his opinions.
I read a lot of the stuff he's referring to and I see the word "neoliberal" more often than neoclassical - so in short I have no idea what he's talking about.
There is no definitive meaning of either neoliberal or neoclassical.
I use the terms this way:
Neoliberalism is a political ideology, stemming from Hayek founding of the Mont Pelerin Society. It's basis is the view that govt intrusion in the market economy leads inevitably to socialism and totalitarianism.
Neoliberalism is the political theory of the market state as opposed to the welfare state advocated by Keynesians.
Neoliberals spun the term "welfare state" to mean the dole rather than the original meaning which is the domestic purpose of govt to promote the general welfare, as in the preamble to the US Constitution.
Neoliberalism is based on neoclassical economics and Austrian economics, which posit that the "free market" is the basis for optimal resource allocation (Pareto optimality), where "free market" means minimal to no govt intrusion.
neoliberal - economic rationalism - thatcherism - reaganomics
Been that way for decades now [and now I finished your comment I think we said the same thing in differing words]
Though I do believe in the US there are attempts to make it mean something else.
Anyway virtually the same discussion has been had previously on Crooked Timber - http://crookedtimber.org/2011/06/06/neo-and-post/
Also have people seen Lars Syll's response: https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/what-is-neoclassical-economics-a-rejoinder-to-noahpinion/
I really don't see any substance in Noah's comments other than politicking - the Heterodox lot are the bad guys. It's like the rich people saying poor people are committing class warfare. Its framing that gets the suckers.
The irony is astounding when I read someone say "Interesting noahpinion post on the way some "heterodox" economists perpetuate their own marginalisation"
additionally I never hear neoclassical but the term is fine to define the current orthodoxy which is what we get in the press.
Perhaps this is just part of the fighting stage of the quote attributed to Schopenhauer (that no one can find a proper reference to) “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I think I quoted Gandhi rather than Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Classical economists defined three factors of production: labour, capital and land. Neclassical replaced land with "market imperfection."
In neoclassical theory land is a market imperfection. Theory works very well in immaterial reality.
Post a Comment