Must read za vse, ki bi radi razumeli, kdaj in kako je ekonomska teorija zablodila v “Lucasovo smer” Neoklasike 2.0, ki dopušča zgolj optimalna ravnotežja brez brezposelnosti. Kar je seveda, kot kaže že tedanja kritika Kennetha Arrowa, ogromna razlika od originalne Samuelsonove Neoklasične sinteze, kjer je bilo prvo zgolj ena izmed možnosti. In kar je Samuelson eksplicitno priznaval.
Škoda, da ekonomske šole po svetu (in seveda tudi pri nas) nimajo več dovolj dobrih in poglobljenih kurzov iz zgodovine ekonomske misli. Šele to bi, kot sem že nekajkrat napisal, študentom omogočilo, da razumejo zgodovinski kontekst, v katerem je bila neka teorija razvita in katere parcialne odgovore na specifična vprašanja je poskušala dati, ne pa da doktorandi tudi iz najboljših ekonomskih šol na svetu te parcialne teorije (ki se zavajujoče imenujejo splošne) jemljejo kot svete in njihove predpostavke kot dogme.
Prvi del okrog Romerja lahko preskočite, ker ga poznate že iz zapisov iz tega bloga, ključen je drugi del, ki se nanaša na Lucasa.
A couple of months ago, Paul Romer created a stir by publishing a paper in the American Economic Review “Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth,” an attack on two papers, one by McGrattan and Prescott and the other by Lucas and Moll on aspects of growth theory. He accused the authors of those papers of using mathematical modeling as a cover behind which to hide assumptions guaranteeing results by which the authors could promote their research agendas. In subsequent blog posts, Romer has sharpened his attack, focusing it more directly on Lucas, whom he accuses of a non-scientific attachment to ideological predispositions that have led him to violate what he calls Feynman integrity, a concept eloquently described by Feynman himself in a 1974 commencement address at Caltech.
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter…
View original post 3,593 more words
You must be logged in to post a comment.