Showing posts with label Alan Kirman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Kirman. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2016

Distinguished Economist Diagnoses the State of Macroeconomics: “It Has Gone Down a Blind Alley…” — David Bassett and François Claveau interview Alan Kirman


What wrong with the economics profession and what to do about it.

Evonomics
Distinguished Economist Diagnoses the State of Macroeconomics: “It Has Gone Down a Blind Alley…”
David Bassett, Research Master student in philosophy and economics in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and François Claveau, PhD candidate at the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE) and a co-editor of the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, interview Alan Kirman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Aix-Marseille III and at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and member of the Institut Universitaire de France

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Lars P. Syll — Macroeconomics on a walk down a blind alley


Quote from Alan Kirman that sums up the approach to conventional macro. It's like the drunk searching for his lost keys under a lampost "because there's more light there."

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
― Richard Feynman


In imitating physicists, economists aren't even doing a good job of it.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Macroeconomics on a walk down a blind alley
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Monday, October 19, 2015

Everything You Need to Know about Laissez-Faire Economics — David Sloan Wilson interviews Alan Kirman


David Sloan Wilson interviews Alan Kirman, professor emeritus of Economics at the University of Aix-Marseille III and at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and is a member of the Institut Universitaire de France

Evonomics
Everything You Need to Know about Laissez-Faire Economics
David S. Wilson is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University and Arne Næss Chair in Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo
ht Mark Thoma at Economist's View

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Chris Dillow — In Praise Of Complexity Economics


Good post summarizing complexity economics with many useful links.
The question is: why is complexity economics not more influential? 
One reason is that it requires different techniques. It can't be studied merely by problem sets (ugh) devoted to standard optimization techniques. Instead, it requires agent-based simulations (here are a couple of examples), laboratory experiments of the sort done by Charles Noussair among others, or close attention to history and the institutional and cultural settings in which markets operate. 
And therein lies a second reason why complexity economics is under-rated. For me, one of its big messages is that context matters. Emergent processes sometimes lead to benign outcomes and sometimes instead to inequality and inefficiency, and which turns out to be the case can hinge on quite small differences. The great economists of the 20th century - such as Keynes, Samuelson or Friedman - tried to offer a general theory. Complexity economics doesn't. 
There's a third reason why complexity economics is under-rated. It does not give us a means of foreseeing the future. Of course, conventional economics doesn't do so either. But the difference is that complexity theory tells us that such forecasts might well be impossible - which is not what the customer wants to hear. The best it can do is help us understand what has happened. And for me, this is good enough. As someone once said, "Economists have only changed the world; the point, however, is to understand it."
Stumbling and Mumbling
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Lars P. Syll — How to reform the teaching of economics


Lars P. Syll
How to reform the teaching of economics
Alan Kirman 

My thoughts previously posted in recent comments, rearranged and edited:


In my view, economics is a failed discipline because it is too partial and needs to be incorporated into social science and integrated with biology, psychology and philosophy, in particular logic, methodology, ethics and social and political philosophy. Economists always view the world through the lens of economics, which is a myopic POV. The world is much larger.

Calling economics as presently practiced a science is silly. It is ideological through and through, making it a combination of speculative philosophy and partisan politics.

Worse, there's no penalty in the economics profession for saying and doing stupid things and acting with conflict of interest. Therefore, I would not call it a "profession" at all. It's a racket.

Without changing the power structure, no permanent change is possible in the framework of so-called capitalism. The problem is not fundamentally economic or financial, that is, related to the factors or money, but rather political, related to power. This has to be addressed politically and the entire system has to be changed to eliminate privilege, which is always ultimately power-based although the source of power may be different in different contexts. Locate the reasons for the power asymmetries leading to privilege and remove them. For example, discussion of economics independently of geopolitical and geostrategy ignores the elephant in the room with respect to the "stock," "flow." "levers," and "control knobs" of power that shape social, political and economic reality on a global scale.

Philosophically, economics is an argument between proponents of the "natural order" (social Darwinism) and humanists, which amounts to economic liberalism versus social liberalism. The so-called natural order favors power. This is addressed by rights. Rights are not natural in that they are not found in the natural world. They are legal constructs that have been imposed politically where a power structure has permitted it.

The contemporary universe of discourse replaced universes of discourses based on the Great Chain of Being at the time of the Scientific Revolution. It's only "scientific" in the sense of replacing a theological anthropomorphism with a more philosophical one based on individualism. The former was a form of holism and the latter is a form of atomism modled on the success of physical science. In science, the laws of nature replaced natural law and Nature replaced God at the apex of the hierarchy. In economics the invisible hand was modeled on 18th century Deism and Newtonian physics.

The fundamental assumption of atomism is that reality is an aggregate of elements, and analysis of the elements yields all possible knowledge of the aggregate.

Methodological individualism fails as an assumption in that it is based on ontological individualism, which in the case of humans in untrue, as amply demonstrated in the case of feral children, as Roger reminds us. In the case of feral children, the person remains at the animal level when introduced to society and is non-functional.

Mechanism also as a metaphor because it is inherently non-reflexive and static. The more appropriate metaphor is organic in that organisms are individually augmenting and declining based on internal systems and their relationships, and interactively adaptive, reflexive, and system-dependent.

The fundamental assumption of holism is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in that the relationships among the parts are as significant as the parts considered separately. This is called synergy.

If economics is to become a science, it needs to develop a fresh holistic approach to replace the previous one based on the Great Chain of Being.

The approach to social, political and economic reality needs to be integrated and also informed by history. It needs to become an integrated systems approach to complexity, reflexivity, and emergence that is data-based rather than introspectively developed.