Why are there no profits in economic theory?

Shouldn’t CrookedTimber be the site that covers the heterodoxy?  Daniel Davies picks up the slack:

The anomaly I’m talking about is that neoclassical economics, in
both macro and micro forms, nearly invariably works on the basis of
models in which there are no profits.

Since in general, companies do earn profits, I think this is a pretty big problem.

Do read his caveats. 

I usually answer such questions by referring to the ordinary humdrum of my suburban life.  It took my three days to buy the new Paul McCartney CD, and yes I do love his solo work, or at least some of it.  And can you guess why it took me so long?  The CD is available only in Starbucks, but until today each Starbucks was situated so that my exit would have necessitated a left turn across four lanes of crowded traffic (and, most importantly, without a traffic light).  I love "Maybe I’m Amazed" as much as the next guy, but this boy just ain’t up for those sorts of indignities.

The higher the value of time, the more likely these competitive barriers will arise.  So the standard monopoly model explains much more of the economy than most market-oriented economists like to admit.  That said, I am less sold on Davies’s worry that this has nihilistic consequences for mainstream economics.  Tariffs are still usually bad; let’s not forget that behavioral imperfections plague politics as well.


Comments for this post are closed