Tuesday, November 6, 2012

One assessment from my Macro Political Economy class this semester

The gulf between actual post-Keynesians and the view of post-Keynesians you get in the blogosphere is many magnitudes wider than the gulf between actual Austrians and the view of Austrians you get in the blogosphere.

To get a sense of real Austrian economics you basically have to learn to tune out Ron Paul fanatics and get a proper sense of proportion between Auburn and the rest of the Austrians (not saying Auburn isn't real Austrian economics - it absolutely is, it's just not the whole story). But "real Austrian economics" is basically out there. It's quite easy to get a sense of the motivating ideas.

You really don't get that at all with post-Keynesians. Part of that is that a lot of the post-Keynesian blogosphere is caught up in big picture fight with "neoclassicism", whereas in actual post-Keynesian work that's just kind of in the background - some throw-away sentences in the introduction. Part of it is also the influence of MMT which I think tries to speak for a lot of the post-Keynesian community. Part of it is that post-Keynesian models are more mathematical than Austrian ideas, and therefore don't make it into the blogosphere as much.

The point is if you want to get what real, actual, Austrian economists are saying you can get that from the blogosphere (of course an in depth sense of it requires more in depth study). But there is no way you could get a sense of a work-horse post-Keynesian model, like a neo-Kaleckian model of income distribution and demand-lead growth, from the blogosphere... at least not in the blogs I've got on my feed.


  1. This is true in most academic disciplines because of stuff you've got to wade through to get a grip on things is well and above what you can find in blogs. I like to say that in order to have a proper disagreement with someone you have lots and lots of similar knowledge in common and about 0.5% disagreement.

  2. Erm... From what I have in my bookmarks:
    Steve Keen posts his academic papers in his blog.
    Robert Vienneau and Matias Vernengo posted some of their Sraffian models.
    MMT is better represented, of course.
    The main problem is, PK blogs aren't in abundance in the first place. Maybe someday some academic economist will write at length about Kaleckian theories, for a change. Maybe you will be that economist! (If the mountain will not come to Muhammad...)

  3. 1. So where's the "post-Keynesian" who understands Austrian theory hiding?

    2. The MMTers don't know the difference between price controls and the free market.

    3. Mike Norman agrees with you about me.


    1. Socialdemocracy21stCentury.blogspot.com

      You gonna win today, Roddis?

    2. " So where's the "post-Keynesian" who understands Austrian theory hiding?"

      That's a funny statement from someone, who, we’ve now established:

      (1) thinks that Hayek’s equilibrium structure of wages and prices has nothing whatsoever to do with neoclassical/Walrasian GE theory.

      (2) thinks the law of demand can be false, yet still this has no impact on the notion of a market-clearing equilibrium structure of wages and prices.

      (3) also demonstrated that his broken record player cry that nobody outside the Austrian school has ever understood their alleged problems of “economic calculation” is nonsense.

    3. It's so refreshing to know that DK has joined forces with LK. In public even.

    4. BTW, LK. You still don't understand the concept of economic calculation. As I recall, I recently convinced longtime skeptic Bob Murphy of that axiomatic truth.

    5. LK, I do not promote the idea of a "market clearing equilibrium structure of wages and prices". All I have said is that the "equilibrium structure" is the collection of prices that would exist without government interference in the formation of prices which is what Hayek said in 1975. Most of the time, most of the market would "clear" but not necessarily all of the time. And so what?

  4. Apart from the examples that Roman P. mentioned, I'd also add J. Barkley Rosser as a Post Keynesian sympathizer who blogs that does use mathematical modeling...however, I'd question how good their models are when Dr. Michael Emmett Brady and other critics like Claudia Heller have questioned the accuracy of the Post Keynesian depiction of Keynes's principle of effective demand and aggregate supply curve.

    The Brazilian economist Claudia Heller supports Dr. Michael Emmett Brady's depiction of Keynes's mathematical model in Book V of The General Theory in the following article, Daniel Kuehn. I also highly recommend reading Arthur Cecil Pigou's The Theory of Unemployment (particularly Part II, Chapters 8 to 10, if my memory serves me right) before re-reading Book V of Keynes's magnum opus. It will help you understand Keynes's mathematical model. Without further ado, here's Claudia Heller's 2010 article in Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo).


  5. A Post-Keynesian who spends less time on value theoretical stuff and more time on monetary theory and macro is Ramanan. Lots of Kalecki and Kaldor and Godley, and even some disagreements with the MMT crowd. You might like him.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.