Category Archives: Phil of Econ
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 … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading
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, … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading