I’m not able to post this on Stephen Williamson’s New Monetarist Economics blog. So I’ll post it here.
Stephen Williamson writes:
“If it’s a good economic idea, and correct, you have to be able to do the math.”
Here’s my challenge.
Give me the “math” of genuine uncertainty, Stephen.
Give me the “math” of evolving . . . → Read More: My Challenge to Stephen Williamson
From Chapter One, “Ontology”:
Evolution is emerging as a central theoretical term bridging mainstream and heterodox economics. This points towards the naturalization of economics. However, in spite of the adherence to physicalist models in mainstream economics, it remains essentially a Geisteswissenschaft, because its underlying theory of mind is mentalistic, in the sense of Cartesian dualism. . . . → Read More: BOOK: The Foundations of Evolutionary Economics by Carsten Herrmann-Pillathn
Economists are increasingly behaving a bit more like real scientists — such as biologists — in leaving their computer screens and going into the world doing field research. It’s a giant throwback to the research tradition of non-economist Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize winner.
James Hamilton has a fascinating piece up comparing a dominant formal math . . . → Read More: ELEGANT MATH VS FIELD RESEARCH — GUESS WHICH DOMINATES IN THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS
Richard Ebeling and I have an extended discussion in the comments section of a post by Steve Horwitz, hashing out the commonalities shared by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Mises — and the differences which distinguish the work of each economist.
Hayekian economists confront the economics profession at the inaugural conference of The Institute for New Economic Theory at Cambridge:
William White’s written paper is here.
Bruce Caldwell’s written text is here. (Note that Caldwell misrepresents Hayek’s economics when he claims that Hayek opposed post-bust counter-deflationary policies — Hayek endorsed these as early as . . . → Read More: YouTube — William White, Bruce Caldwell, Alex Leijonhufvud & Tony Lawson at the Soros Conference
A letter from Friedrich Hayek to Joan Robinson, dated March 10, 1941, quoted in Konstantinos Repapis’s paper “Hayek’s business cycle theory during the 1930’s: A critical account of its development:
“My present pre-occupation with what may seem altogether different problems [than technical issues of the business cycle] may suggest to you that I am running . . . → Read More: letter: F.A. Hayek to Joan Robinson, March 1941
In my first two Hayek Seminar postings I highlighted the fact that for Hayek the empirical character of economics science begins with empirical problems in our experience. We witness a constantly repeated pattern in which prices “tend” toward costs. Alternatively, we attempt to impose a system of “just prices” and our attempts to empirical control . . . → Read More: seminar: Ransom on Hayek 3