Its time once again for Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
@Ikonoclast #49
I’m untroubled by (a). Why people do stuff is less important than how one’s behaviour bears upon the legitimate interests and claims of others. I don’t know what to make of (b). I’m for setting a cap at a realistic time in the future and producing a performance curve along the way to get us there. If we do a little better than we thought early, then let’s adjust the end point accordingly and advise everyone at the start that that is our plan. I see (c) as spurious. There are no significant technical difficulties measuring emissions associated with combustion of fossil fuels or cement manufacture. Measuring CH4 and CO2 from livestock may be a little trickier but not really all that hard. By comparison, accounting is a far more tricky business. In any event you will have to find a way to that with a non-arbitrary tax. I also wonder how you can conclude that if governments and industry are as likely to collude and deceive as you claim why they’d not simply draw up a tax regime that reflected this appetite. You want tariffs as sanctions on recalcitrants but that simply isn’t going to fly at the moment. No significant state is going to put itself at odds with major trading partners. Australia certainly won’t so you do need something that is going to fly in both jurisdictions.
More broadly, carbon taxes assume that the marginal costs of avoiding emissions are identical when plainly they are not. Nor are they capable of being adjusted in anything like real time. And in the end, a tax regime tempts every putative claimant to office to propose abolition of ‘taxes that make us uncompetitive’ and they will have near uniform industry support for that. Wedging the business groups is an important tool of policy.
In a world rather closer to the ideal than the one we have now, we’d simply say: here’s what’s happening to the business community and proceed to implement a low emissions world economy ignoring the wailing and gnashing of teeth. But as you note, Ikon, the governments of the world are not honest brokers and so we have to put some obstacles in the path of their appetites to collude. A transparent cap and trade system with a strong cap is an exercise in dividing our enemies and having a goal-driven outcome which they can’t resist.
While the current proposed ETS is unsupportable a carbon tax will simply muddy the waters further and be every bit as poor. At best, we could improve it in the future rather more easily, but I fear that that day will never come.
One alternative might be to push compliance as close to the end of the chain as possible. Give every individual adult (and in the case of families — the household heads by proxy for their children) a carbon card that would have to be produced to purchase any service. Everyone could get a quota and if they exhausted it they’d have to buy more credit from someone who was under or from the state and a premium to the market. Every product would have to supply authenticated pre-purchase carbon costs (including carbon miles) so people could decide what they could afford. And no card, no purchase.
Businesses could get a similar one based on world’s best practice in emissions at the time. This allowance would be decremented over time to meet the projected CO2 target.
I’m not sure that’s politically viable but that might work technically.
With the tolerance of Prof. Quiggins here,The Dam Clarence River Plan has developed like a sewerage turd by natural osmosis has turned into a very large monument to the power of water.Well the Plan is certainly not a wellspring,or even a naughty boy,but is stalking the land again.I am actually very fond of large cylindrical concrete pipes..cannot get enough of them.I dont own even a lousy one,but,if I had a few, I could,in a pinch,find a use for them.One use of them,if I had all the other expletive equipment,and an agreement by Government ,that the costs would be shared later whilst down payment on the pipe and costs was initially paid up front.Would be, to not only set a Guinness Book of Records attempt at placing large pipes one on top of the other vertically at their ends,with minimal supports,but also to set off inside the concrete pipes the frequency range,now known to produce the required water conditions from the atmospheric moisture content in the night.Then again the Councils of N.SW. and Government bodies and even buying enterprise,because there maybe some, could simply seek scientific and technological advice as to the merit of such an idea,and proceed to experiment forthwith.On their way to landing them where they are required to be placed.There is even a rather Green person who Prof.Quiggins has made some disparaging remarks about in the past,who knows and dreamed up a future pulling down atmospheric moisture in this way with frequency matters, the pipes could have some internal lining at low cost to achieve a ,what are the words for it, attenuated harmonics extended.And it is entirely possible to apply the principle of anodic cathodic matters on each end of the configuration by extremities of temperature!? Who will have the guts to see if what I outlined is theoretically impossible,if, money is available to see if it could work!?
@Donald Oats
Don – good comments – yes it is interesting isnt it – did the papers release this info on terrorism early to create a media diversion?
Today we have 4 pages of a terror threat in the Telegraph (and it seems a bit odd that they are somalis?
Grech makes page 9 BUT this is part of his email communication to his political master Turnbull on 5th June (before Turnbull claims to have known anything about it).
“I really beleive there is meat in this one. Swan is probably more exposed than Rudd….perhaps we should talk to sort out next steps..I am happy to meet you and Abetz (no staffers) bla bla bla.
The little manipukator and now he wants us all to beleive he isnt a well man.
He may not be, but he was well enough to use his treasury position to plot and scheme against the incumbent government, in cahoots with the tragic opposition.
Grech is finished. His career is over and his reputation is in tatters and Turnbull and Abetz look like mafioso dirty tricks pimps.
I have one question – why did Joe Hockey also phone Grech on the weekend he was holed up in his house?
Now that Turnbull has stuck the knife into Grech as a nutcase (convenient excuse but not at all true) he better watch his own back. Why did Hockey call Grech? Why arent we hearing anything about that?
Alice, I’m not taking sides but the Godwin Grech saga started from the supposedly lost email he received from the PM’s office. Now the real issue is who’s lying, the PM’s department or Grech. I can only assume the AFP are focusing on this one issue.
I must say I’m still confused as to what on Earth Grech’s true motivation was, given that Turnbull and Abetz are overflowing with rat cunning – apologies to rattus rattus everywhere – the question is why did Grech try to play them with a fantastic email? His answers don’t go toward an explanation IMO. Anyone know what the cops thought about all this, or are they still investigating? As for Grech being mentally ill, I would not be at all surprised if that much is true, given the crazy workhours he allegedly put in, and the fairly major health problems that have plagued him. Whether his current condition is due to just this event, or whether it is due to cumulative pressure from living a double life during the previous Liberal government’s reign of error – allegedly providing Howard and co. the juice on Treasury by night while being a diligent, non-partisan public servant by day – only he can say. If he was suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome after the Liberals lost power, and concocted the Utegate evidence as a means of regaining the thrill of the glory days of being a Liberal mole in Treasury, well in that case I have less than zero sympathy for his plight.
BTW, our local copy of the Australian (Murray Bridge) has the Utegate all over the front page, and this was the early edition apparently. The 1:30am metropolitan Melbourne edition had the headline story concerning the raids on properties of suspected terrorists.
Finally, won’t someone somewhere look into AWB thoroughly…please?
In my second last paragraph it was the Tuesday edition of the Australian, both in Murray Bridge and Melbourne.
AWB AWB AWB AWB AWB, come on Mike Moore, do some investigig invistigi investivigi investigative reporting!
Alice,
Thanks for the admission that you did get him.
It was a horrible accident Andy!
Hey – you were right. No shame there.
One quote from this site.
http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/
See carbon-tax-needed-not-cap-and-trade-emission-trading-scheme-ets
“Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]: “The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions — primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems — and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading — the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels. Tree plantations claimed to absorb carbon dioxide, in addition, often drive people off their lands and destroy biological diversity without resulting in progress toward alternative energy systems. This exhaustively-documented but highly-readable book takes a broad look at the social, political and environmental dimensions of carbon trading and investigates climate mitigation alternatives. It provides a short history of carbon trading and discusses a number of ‘lessons unlearned’. Detailed case studies from ten Third World countries — Guatemala, Ecuador, Uganda, Tanzania, Costa Rica, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, South Africa and Brazil — expose the outcomes on the ground of various carbon ‘offset’ schemes. The book concludes that the ‘carbon trading’ approach to the problem of rapid climate change is both ineffective and unjust. The bulk of fossil fuels must be left in the ground if climate chaos is to be avoided.” [7].
The empirical facts are already in. Carbon trading schemes and offsets already in place are entirely shonky and are in fact leading to accelerated climate damage. A carbon tax has some chance of working but cap and trade never. Go and read the green paper and draft legislation for the capping mechanism. This cap is not real. It is lawyers words with gitant holes and escape clauses all over the place. I honestly can’t believe people are so naive as to fall for this.
This article sums up the issues well. It’s called “Obscenity of Carbon Trading”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6132826.stm
I like this quote;
Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, has observed: “The reality is that applying cost-benefit analysis to questions such as [climate change] is junk economics… It is a vanity of economists to believe that all choices can be boiled down to calculations of monetary value.”
Ikonoclast, There are economists who would agree with Tom Burke. The situation with CO2 is difficult. Both, a carbon tax and cap and trade are potentially manipulable. The cap and trade idea was developed during the era of ‘globalisation’ and, I believe, the idea was to allow international trades in carbon credits. Personally, I don’t like the link to GDP in the analysis because GDP numbers contain what I call ‘commercial values’ (ie monetary prices which emerge in an economy with incomplete commodity markets but money and credit). These prices are ‘wrong’, relative to theoretical ‘market prices’ because they exclude costs for significant negative externalities (incomplete markets) . However, I imagine governments are interested in GDP numbers because taxation revenue depends on it.
I have a question. In one of your posts you speak out against neo-classical economics. I am not convinced there is a clear cut boundary for neo-classical economics. Can you give me a hint as to which literature you have in mind?
John, it seems like Rudd is getting an earful at the Pacific Islands Forum summit for seven of the smallest forum members are asking Australia and other developed countries to slash their greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent by 2020.
John, don’t tell anyone but a Dargo real estate agent is advertising on the internet a property for $21,000 instead of the asking price of $210,000. A real bargain.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Michael, if its a job to help one car dealer even assuming Grech didnt lie about the original email that he couldnt find and decided to re-invent – lets look at the facts – how bad is helping one Australian car dealer when under JH the AWB was helping Saddam Hussein, and how bad is it compared to the libs not only investing in the fake Firepower pill but promoting it on the international stage, and how bad is is it compared to JH selling the last of the old Australian Wool Board wool stockpile to a coterie of selected private citizens?, and how bad is when people like Windschuttle and Albrechtsen got well paid ABC board positions under JH (what the hell did they have to offer broadcasting?? Bugger all)
Lets get this in perspective and lets get Godwin Grechs attempts to humiliate Rudd into perspective. Even if Grech wasnt lying about the original emails it is nothing but small fry compared to what JH handed out around town to his mates and friends. Piddlingly small fry compared to that.
Grech is just a tragic…really…a tragic pathetic case of a liberal mole and a… (I cant say the rest – its just too rude).
John, the above should read Bairnsdale real estate agent.
Alice, let’s wait and see what the AFP’s findings are before more damage is done. A lot of people have their careers at stake.
Listen Michael – we dont need the AFP findings.
Grech was a liberal mole. What part of that dont you understand? Did you read his letter in the paper today? It was just sad – here he is critcising Rudd for trying to help a mate in the car delaing business and Grech freely admits to making phone calls to people about a liberal car dealing mate (same industry) who he knew was a liberal party donor and here is Grech trying to help him (because he was bloody liberal party donor).
Get with whats going one here Michael – Grech is making calls to help a liberal party donator and at the same time trying to sledge Rudd with concocted emails ABOUT THE VERY SAME THING.
I couldnt give stuff about Grech’s career. He doesnt desrve to be in the public service in any position because he is NOT impartial as he is supposed to be…
Public servants are supposed to be impartial (neutral, apolitical, and just give advice to the best of their skills and abilities. A politicised public service is an ineffective useless and dangerous public service that shows evidence of breakdown.
He should be fired and it is quite right that it be so. He doesnt deserve a career as a Treasury official. Its plain and its simple.
No Alice, Australia awaits the AFP findings.
Notwithstanding the AFP findings Michael, Grech’s career is finished Michael. This will become evident with or without the AFP findings.
Because he did not show impartiality. He breached the implied responsibilities of his role. Mark my bet here.
And Michael, for someone who so energetically supports Rees and State Labor (without question we get thumbs sup every time from you?), I do now question your ambivalence to supprting the Fedral labor Govt under Rudd???????? Whats with that Michael?
Its rather odd of you, if I do say so myself (although others have indicated they are annoyed at the “thumbs up Rees” thingy as well).
AFP findings = Grech faked the email.
We know that.
Alice, let’s wait and see what the AFP come up with rather than speculate who did what.
We know who did what Michael. Everything else is will be a post hoc fallacy.
But you didnt answer my question Micheal. Why the unquestioning allegiance to State Labor but not Federal Labor? I find this aspect of your persona here very intriguing. Is NSW Labor paying you for any reason? Im starting to suspect you are the local brach rep!
Alice, it is the unknowns which are unknown and until the AFP findings are made public no-one knows what the unknowns are for it is unknown.
Grech is being played up as some kind of whistleblower hero by George Brandis and other Liberals; let’s compare Grech against another “whistleblower”, shall we.
GG: provides a fake email, prepared questions and responses, seemingly designed to attack the Labor government over a rather small issue – which turned out to be false, anyway. Cops find “email” originated from Grech’s home computer. Grech admits to being the author. Liberals run around parading GG as some kind of whistleblower hero.
Kessing: denies providing a real document – which he is the author of – to journalists. The document is found on his home computer by police (maybe he wrote some of it while working from home) He is found guilty and convicted with suspended sentence. As a result of the document being leaked, the Howard government had to perform $100 million of Airport Security upgrades. Result? Liberal government buries him, the courts convict him of leaking confidential documents – even though he has maintained his innocence all along – and he loses most of his public service entitlements including his job. Loses the rest of his super fighting the decision through the courts.
One “whistleblower” is feted as a public hero and faked his leaked document. The other “whistleblower is public enemy No. 1, even though the leaked document was a report on Airport Security, clearly in the public interest, he was the bonafide author of the document, and he has consistently denied ever leaking it in the first place.
TANJ!
Crikey John, Fielding has got under the skin of Greg Combet and now Combet let loose giving him a mouth full saying Fielding uses populist non-peer reviewed science and of wasting the time of Australia’s chief scientist Penny Sackett. Spot on.
I note that Senator Brandis on Lateline last night persisted describing Grech’s defamatory fabrication as “silly” and an “error of judgement”.
This makes it seem like something that reasonable people might have contemplated at the time but which, with hindsight didn’t work out as well as one supposed it might have — rather like the dinner party host who decided to go with beef stroganoff without knowing that half her guests were vegan.
So the alternative AG thinks tortious, and possibly criminal conduct is simply unwise?
These people are unfit to be anywhere near government.
This just in from the Courier Mail
They knew he was a longstanding Coalition ‘asset’. He’d worked under Howard in PM&C … How did they “miss” this?
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine,
I think I would take Steve Keen’s article on his blog (Neoclassical economics – mad , bad and dangerous to know) as providing a basic implicit definition of neoclassical economics. I am not trained in economics so perforce I have to say, “What he said.”
Namely, “Neoclassical economics contributed directly to this crisis by promoting a faith in the innate stability of a market economy, in a manner which in fact increased the tendency to instability of the financial system. With its false belief that all instability in the system can be traced to interventions in the market, rather than the market itself, it championed the deregulation of finance and a dramatic increase in income inequality. Its equilibrium vision of the functioning of finance markets led to the development of the very financial products that are now threatening the continued existence of capitalism itself.” – Steve Keen.
I have, as a layperson, read Das Kapital Vols 1 and 2 (a long time ago) and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (a while ago too). Other than that, I have read critics of the “excessive economic” approach which said excessive economic approach leaves out other values particularly those of social democracy. I refer to critics such as John Ralston Saul and Micheal Pusey. In other words, I am highly suspicious of the “free markets solve everything” approach. Cap and trade seems to be imbued, or perhaps I should say infected, with this philosophy.
With respect to your closing statment, “I have a question. In one of your posts you speak out against neo-classical economics. I am not convinced there is a clear cut boundary for neo-classical economics. Can you give me a hint as to which literature you have in mind?” Maybe I am a little paranoid but do I sense a certain “expert” superciliousness and sense of intellectual superiority coiled insiduously in your question? I’m not educated in your field but I’m not a mug.
@Ikonoclast
Ikono – I dont think Ernestine means to sound like that….ie its a genuine question from Ernestine. If you cant answer it – dont because Ernestine is probably hoping someone else may have a link to the relevant literature.
Oh and JR Saul is brilliant (so is Pusey) but he is a political scientist and a historian who has won numerous literature awards and did his phd thesis on the modernisation of France under De Gaulle. Thats likely a different field to Ernestines and he would not reference the sort of literature Ernestine would be after. Many consider Saul an economist (I do) though because of the incisive nature of his books and because many cover economic concepts with considerable insight.
The loss of people like Saul / economic historians, who addresses the big picture is pretty apparent in economics now. Economic history was driven from the profession in many unis (how many economic historians have jobs now) as a result of neo liberal agendas in unis actually. We could start with the nasty split in Sydney uni in the 1970s where over 2000 students went on strike over the dry empirical culture that was starting to invade economics departments and the separation between the two fields (a wrenching apart actually ….key personalities involved then? Warren Hogan (the pusher of an empiricism prevails approach) and Frank Stilwell ( who has always suggested economics needed both approaches ie qualitative research as well – not to be overweight in empiricism).
Anyway, the empiricists won and hence the reason many are asking questions now…about the questionability and usefulness of the science itself.
The split should never have happened and was politically motivated but thank goodness we still have the Sauls, the Stilwells, the Puseys, and the Quiggins of the world. You cant keep good men down!
I think Ernestine knows what the term means and wonders if I mean the same thing as people’s definitions differ. Either that or Ernestine considers the term is rather vague in general and she may be right. There are many proponents, opponents and positions.
According to the Wikipedia;
“As expressed by E. Roy Weintraub, neoclassical economics rests on three assumptions, although certain branches of neoclassical theory may have different approaches:
(1) People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.
(2) Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.
(3) People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.”
In addition, Steve Keen identifies neoclassical economics as possessing;
(1) a belief the innate stability of a market economy,
(2) it’s corollary, that all instability in the system can be traced to interventions in the market
Keen states;
“The fallacy that dynamic processes must be modelled as if the system is in continuous equilibrium through time is probably the most important reason for the intellectual failure of neoclassical economics. Mathematics, sciences and engineering long ago developed tools to model out of equilibrium processes, and this dynamic approach to thinking about the economy should become second nature to economists….
An essential pedagogic step here is to hand the teaching of mathematical methods in economics over to mathematics departments. Any mathematical training in economics, if it occurs at all, should come after students have done at least basic calculus, algebra and differential equations—the last area being one about which most economists of all persuasions are woefully ignorant. ” – Keen.
In addition, I would also add the reminder that economics is always political economy, not just economy. Economics is always moulded by political decisions, aspects of the standing social order and so on. This means that true economics will be an extremely difficult profession as it will encompass history, politics and mathematics and will also embody key and extensive inputs and methods from engineering, computing, evolutionary biology, environmental studies and physics. Without doing this, mainstream economics will remain like a cross btween the medieval schoolmen and the religious metaphysicians, i.e. in need a Francis Bacon to break them out of their navel-gazing guild, their academic hair-splitting and their general unempirical and faith-based approach.
Perhaps economics needs to become a profession of general practitioners, specialists and “specialised generalists” (the latter being akin to physicians in medicine) along the lines of medicine. This last is rather off the cuff thought so it may be a bit whacky. Or it may be happening now. I don’t know, I’m not in any loop let along the economists loop.
Addendum addressing Alice’s point about the 1970s split in Sydney Uni. Steve Keen was in the thick of that and so could characterise it better than me. I think the neoclassical mainsteam can be characterised as willfully ignorant and rejecting of history and of the political in political economy. Their empiricism is however only a pseudo-empiricism for it is based on easily refutable assumtions namely;
(1) People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.
(2) Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.
(3) People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.
(4) The market economy is innately stable and can be modelled with an equilibrium model.
(5) Exponential physical growth can continue indefinitely in the economy as the earth has an infinite capacity to support growth.
All of these absurd premises can be easily refuted. BTW, in essential theory and in practice, they really do make assumption five.
Furthermore they are not equipped with the hard science skills of mathematics, physics, engineeering etc to properly investigate reality. Neoclassical economics is an ideology with transparent pretensions to empiricism and scientific method.
“I think I would take Steve Keen’s article on his blog (Neoclassical economics – mad , bad and dangerous to know) as providing a basic implicit definition of neoclassical economics. I am not trained in economics so perforce I have to say, “What he said.””
It’s nice to see you don’t let your ignorance of the subject impede you from lecturing others about it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axix3jKPsmCY
Australian employment rose in the month of July.
I look forward to the usual suspects explaining how this is entirely consistent with their predictions of the eminent demise of Rudd/Obama/Capitalism/the ETS/the global warming hoax/fill in crackpot obsession of your choice
John, the federal government should not be perturbed by Miles Prosser pleas that the imposition of an extra $700 million burden over the next 10 years will harm the aluminium industry for the AAC has already stated in their submission that ‘existing facilities will not literally be “moved” overseas’. Rather the AAC should be penalised for the harm done to the environmental and forced to clean up their mess.
Thanks Ian, your comments are pure “Gould”. Perhaps you can enlighten us all on the characteristics of the main schools of neoclassical economics.
I am not trained in Medicine either. However, I do have a tertiary education covering a wide selection of subjects in the humanities and the sciences. I can, for example, discern the difference between science based Medicine and the various schools of alternative quackery which have little empirical basis including naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, hypnosis, homeopathy and acupuncture to name a few.
In like manner, I can discern between genuine attempts at science based economics (which are further informed by a study of history and political economy) and the self-serving ideological quackery of the neoclassical and Austrian schools with their patently absurd and easily refutable premises and doctrines. They are simply the apologists (in most cases) for the neoconservatives, corporations and oligarchs seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of impoverishing the main body of the public and destroying the environment.
Finally, do you think one little monthly up-blip in employment in Australia means it’s all over? (The Global Financial Crisis, the imminent Global Environmental Crisis and the imminent Global Resource Shortage?) I don’t think you are following the big picture at all.
@Ian Gould
Ian – thats a good sign isnt it? (is it really?) A one month jump in employment of 32,000 people when the unemployment rate is 4 times the post war decades and has been fudged so many times if you even so much as wink at a prospective employer you are counted as employed and it says nothing about a growing pool of underemployed. I cant really get your figures into the perspective they are due Ian. A drop by a drop in a bucket of unemployment?
@Ikonoclast
Ikono – in regards to this comment ”
Any mathematical training in economics, if it occurs at all, should come after students have done at least basic calculus, algebra and differential equations—the last area being one about which most economists of all persuasions are woefully ignorant. ”
I personally think they should do NO mathematics until they have studied some economic history and the history of economic thought (the models of which can then be revisited later after the mathematical training). I think the students would also prefer that approach and find it more interesting. Where are the details of our own economic development in economics undegrad degrees? A basic pre-requisite I would have thought. Its almost as if someone at some point in our history decided that economists should not look back, only forward. If they had been taught to look back over longer time periods (imagine what might happen here – if more economists studied economic history..they might uncover that a particular government policy was a mistake and that another govt policy was an unmitigated disaster…) Cant gave that, can we? Best to stick the blindfold on, fire up the stats pack and wait for the print out on a here and now micro market result.
@Ikonoclast
Indeed Ikono – but the comment at 36 was not a comment but a snark.
Ikonoclast @34, I thank you for your careful reply. My motivation was indeed as you stated.
If one characterises neo-classical economics by the statements given, then I would concur that it is pretty hopeless. Some of these characterisations are empty – what exactly does it mean to say it is assumed that the economy is in a continuous state of equilibrium? What type of equilibrium? Why do some people assume that others have a ‘utility function’ – where is it – in the hip pocket. It is easy to make fun of everything that has ever been written. It seems to me the idea of unlimited ‘growth’ belongs to some version of macroeconomics.
Your point about the knowledge prerequisites is a good one, IMO. In the early 1980s I had the pleasure of meeting Professor Debreu. His advice was that it is useful to be a little older when studying Economics. I assume he didn’t suggest people should waste their young years.
I am not so sure about the importance of economics and politics for everybody. However, our host is a good example in support of your point.
Apropos Sydney University in the 1970s. I was there too. Professor Simkin was there too. One day the engineers put on a parade shouting: What do we want? We want politicl engineering. When do we want it? After lunch!
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine – economics should not be divorced from political economy. It was political economy before it was termed economics and each is important and so is political engineering.
Right now it shouldnt be put to “after lunch” or am I missing something in your comment?
Economics not all about the mathematically efficient quanitities of meat relative to gravy in the humble pie in the humble pie makers factory. Why on earth when things reach crisis point in the larger macroeconomies (like the catastrophic GFC) do people ask quite legitimately – what the hell is going on in the economics profession? They want answere to large problems not just small problems that can be solved relatively easily empirically. The larger interactions – not quite so easy Ernestine. Models…models…someone needs to look at the faulty assumptions underlying models if they plainly dont work (despite widespread application eg EHH).
New models required and braver economists to say – bloody hell…it doesnt work like we thought it would.
Political economy asks these questions Ernestine and to leave it until after lunch is somehwat lax (as a profession) I would have thought.
I like your empirical understanding of models Ernestine but its not the be all and end all of economics. We need to go deeper than that. At times I think you do but there is a certain intellectual snobbery there as well…”if you cant understand the mathematical aspects of a particular model …you have no right to question it”?
People will question regardless.
should say EMH
John, it seems like the Ozcar poker game has disintegrated into a game of bluff and Steve Fielding wants to be part of it.
@Ian Gould
Perchance are you referring to the recession we had but didnt have?
@Alice
“You cant keep good men down!”
Is that how an efficient market works Alice?
If I post quickly I will get comment 100. Yay!
Employment is up in Australia on the latest monthly figures. However, if one looks behind that one sees that full time emp is down and PT emp is up. Furthermore, aggregate hours are down. Mr Gould’s point pops and evaporates like a soap bubble.