A loyal MR reader requests coverage:
On mainstream versus "fringier" economic schools of thought (and schools themselves too if you like); and on different schools of thought generally, and your take on them; where economic theory is at present.
Here is me on Sraffa and the neo-Ricardians and also post-Keynesians and the Cambridge capital debates. The Austrians I cover all the time. Here is my post on what is new and essential in economics. Overall I don’t believe in schools of thought for modern economics. Think of the notion of a school of thought as a brand. The whole point of the internet is to break down branding into the evaluation smaller units, including individuals and their very particular ideas, even doing cite counts paper by paper. Why move toward more macro branding in that kind of environment? You can think of trustworthy bloggers as another means of branding and also as substitutes for schools of thought.
Today I see neuroeconomics and personality psychology as two frontiers, plus economic history, but I wouldn’t call any of those schools of thought, nor should they be.
Increasingly many successful academics blog, but its not obvious that blogosphere ties yet muster the kinds of solidarity to provide career advantage. What barriers do you think are getting in the way of that.
Schools of thought do matter if they define the basic assumptions you are working with. The institutional crowd (“original” and new; I subscribe to both) has a different view on many matters because they take one step backwards to consider how and if most of the assumptions in neoclassical economics (e.g., transaction costs, enforcible contracts, political boundaries) even exist. From this perspective (there’s a lot more), members of this school may see (some) other schools as completely invalid — or perhaps just as mathterbators
I agree with David Zetland up to a point – schools of thought also matter, and perhaps even more, if they are defined by the analytical tools they use. Austrians, in theory, deny the validity of most of the analytical tools of the other “schools” for the purpose of converting data into predictive theory.
How is post-keynesian, and austrian non mainstream? We learn them in school too (well, at least we covered them)
For those interested, I have written (I hope) readable yet informative articles on both the reswitching question (i.e. Cambridge capital controversy) and Sraffa’s famous book. I agree totally with Tyler about Sraffa, though I’m protective of Bohm-Bawerk and so still like “roundaboutness.”
Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of cabal online alz.
As a professional IT study materials provider, Pass4sure is specially designed for IT candidates who want to pass any IT exams, supported by a powerful team for product research and development, as well as website development and operation. Its vendors like Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, compTIA, HP, etc, are all positioned as leaders in the IT field.
The Most Popular Vendors List : 642-566,642-373,70-272,70-642,70-643,70-236,70-294,70-646,70-291,70-290,642-661,642-661,642-901,70-536,70-293,70-299,70-271,VCP-310,70-270,1Y0-259,000-078,N10-004,642-061,646-230
Comments on this entry are closed.