Peter Radford — Some thoughts on economics

My instinctive entry point into economics is through business....
Economics as it exists today in its mainstream form is of no use whatever to anyone seeking to understand the reality of business. Our extant theories of the firm are failures in that they attempt to see the world through a neoclassical lens whilst that lens obscures anything remotely real from view in an effort to retain the equilibrating perfection of the closed system envisaged by Walras. The contradiction between the pursuit of equilibrium explanations and the open ended nature of the real world defeats neoclassicism at the starting gate and dooms it to subsequent nonsensical irrelevance....

In this context I have to attribute a great honor to the Arrow-Debreu effort to complete the Walrasian episode. Arrow-Debreu deserves our constant indebtedness. It shows, definitively, how the Walrasian tradition cannot be an explanation for a real economy. It achieves completion by imposing such horrendously, and obviously, unreal constraints on itself that it proves Walras wrong. It is thus great science. It is the falsification of a tradition shown to be worthless.

On another matter: mainstream economists have never adequately, in my opinion, responded to Coase’s challenge of 1937. He asked simply: if markets do what classical economists and their followers say they do, why do firms exist? They ought not. That they do suggests something is very wrong at the heart of orthodox thinking. So I add the ‘Coase conundrum’ to Arrow-Debreu as adding weight to the critique. Mainstream economics is alchemy....

Asymmetrical information is another challenge to orthodoxy that is too often ignored. Information about things is patchy in the real world. Very patchy. It is non-existent with regard to the medium and long term future. Yet this never deters the neoclassical theorists. They march along as if asymmetry was an inconvenience that can be assumed away for simplicity’s sake, rather than a dagger in the heart of their work....

Uncertainty and complexity characterize the real world. Certainty and simplicity characterize neoclassical economics. Hence it irrelevance. It is complicated though, as Arrow-Debreu shows. It has to be. Its epicycles weigh it down. But no amount of clever formalism can turn unreality into reality, just as lead is pretty tough to turn into gold. This doesn’t mean that neoclassical economist aren’t very bright. They are. They have to be to to tend to those epicycles. Newton, after all, spent more time on alchemy than on recognizable physics. No indeed, they are very bright. Just wrong. 

Real-World Economics Review Blog

Some thoughts on economics
Peter Radford

This is a seminal article. Not much that we haven't said hundreds of time on this blog and in the comments, but Peter Radford ties it together very nicely — concise, precise and clear.

Note also that what is said about economics, order and entropy wrt to management also applies wrt to governing, and as Norbert Weinberg observes in naming cybernetics. It's also the basis of general system theory developed by economist Kenneth Boulding and others from related fields who understood the fundamental role of information in imposing order and overcoming entropy. See A Curriculum for Cybernetics and Systems Theory by Alan B. Scrivener for a summary of the basics.

Why don't conventional economists read this stuff, or if they do, why don't they use it?

Where I would quibble with Radford is over his assertion,

"The substitution of labor for capital or vice versa tells us that neither if fundamental. The energy and skill are. Energy and knowledge deployed to order resources for subsequent disordering. That’s the economic process." 

Is he forgetting that capital goods are also produced by labor? Labor is basic until capital goods can produce capital goods and innovate while doing so. That level of AI is still  in the dream stage of development, and even then it seems that knowledge workers will still be required in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.