This title perhaps strikes the reader as a contradiction in terms-it kind of does for me: it seems to me that if you ask the average layperson what kinds to mind when they think of economics, probably the last thing the typical answer will be is a source of optimism.
Presently, I'm reading Krugman's textbook-he published it just a few years ago with his wife, Robin Weils, who is also an economist. This thought of the optimistic aspect of economics just came to me while reading about comparative advantage. The big picture is I'm trying to do what Nick Rowe has requested-I'm reading a undergraduate economics textbook-rather than merely inveighing against Mainstream Econ through ignorance.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/03/ok-nick-rowe-you-win-ill-read-econ.html
I think he has to admit I've followed his urging-I've just finished a long textbook which in all honesty I read from cover to cover by Greg Mankiw. I found it quite good-the only thing was that it was the 1999 edition so a lot has happened since then but much of it no doubt he and most mainstream macroeconomists still believe. I bought that because back then I was broke and it was much more affordable.
I just finally vanquished his book and have now started Krugman's-when I finish here I will finish my process of doing what Nick asks by reading Paul Samuleson's classic 'The Foundations of Macroeconomics.
', the orignal 1948 version. I'm doing more than Nick even asked-he said read a textbook, I'm reading three.
My reason for this is I'm very interested in seeing where a Krugman and a Mankiw agree and where they disagree and then how they do against Samuelson, 56 years ago.
Early, into Krugman, it's clear there are some differences but at this point the main ones have been of style rather than substance-Krugman probably emphasizes the idea that markets can fail a little more prominently, but Mankiw is very clear in his book that this is so and that 'sometimes, the government can improve market outcomes.'
This is of interest, as politically these two men are usually at odds. Many conservatives accuse Krugman of 'knowing better' but basically being dishonest for political reasons and Krugman made basically the same charge against Mankiw during his time as Romney's economic adviser during the 2012 Presidential campaign.
Anyway, the story of comparative advantage, I actually find a quite optimistic one, funny enough. I mean, traditionally, economics has turned many off as it seems to many to really deromanticize humanity-it seems to reduce us at every turn to just a bundle of selfish wants where all we care about is our own interests and advantages, our fellow man be damned. This isn't really how I see it but many have understood things like Smith's Invisible Hand that way.
Even those who accept it as having some validity don't find it a partiuclarly appetizing way of understanding mankind and society. I mean a discussion of 'comparative' advantage might not be the thought of thing a Rousseaun artist thinks about when he waxes that the 'heart has its reasons that Reason knows not.'
As I've mentioned, I'm currently also reading Piketty-but whether you think he's right or not it's not very optimistic-basically because in the future the rate of profits in capital will outstrip the rate of growth we will see worse and worse levels of inequality of wealth the world over.
Meanwhile both many Keynesians and Market Monetarists have accepted something like 'secular stagnation'-including Sumner.
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/07/follow-up-to-my-washington-post-piece.html
With comparative advantage, we have for once an optimistic concept. On the one hand we accept the inequalities of ability between people but on the other even if one person A has an absolute advantage in everything in person B, it will still be beneficial for Person A and Person B to enter into trade together.
This is a rather 'uncanny' result-when I use this word I think of Geoff Waite.
http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-Corps-Technoculture-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822317192/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405885061&sr=1-1&keywords=geoff+waite
What comparative advantage (CA) suggests is a minimal basis for human society. for friends, for families, for lovers, etc. Or like Zizek and Lacan find-the Other will always want something from us, though divining it is another matter entirely-hardly an easy business.
Presently, I'm reading Krugman's textbook-he published it just a few years ago with his wife, Robin Weils, who is also an economist. This thought of the optimistic aspect of economics just came to me while reading about comparative advantage. The big picture is I'm trying to do what Nick Rowe has requested-I'm reading a undergraduate economics textbook-rather than merely inveighing against Mainstream Econ through ignorance.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/03/ok-nick-rowe-you-win-ill-read-econ.html
I think he has to admit I've followed his urging-I've just finished a long textbook which in all honesty I read from cover to cover by Greg Mankiw. I found it quite good-the only thing was that it was the 1999 edition so a lot has happened since then but much of it no doubt he and most mainstream macroeconomists still believe. I bought that because back then I was broke and it was much more affordable.
I just finally vanquished his book and have now started Krugman's-when I finish here I will finish my process of doing what Nick asks by reading Paul Samuleson's classic 'The Foundations of Macroeconomics.
', the orignal 1948 version. I'm doing more than Nick even asked-he said read a textbook, I'm reading three.
My reason for this is I'm very interested in seeing where a Krugman and a Mankiw agree and where they disagree and then how they do against Samuelson, 56 years ago.
Early, into Krugman, it's clear there are some differences but at this point the main ones have been of style rather than substance-Krugman probably emphasizes the idea that markets can fail a little more prominently, but Mankiw is very clear in his book that this is so and that 'sometimes, the government can improve market outcomes.'
This is of interest, as politically these two men are usually at odds. Many conservatives accuse Krugman of 'knowing better' but basically being dishonest for political reasons and Krugman made basically the same charge against Mankiw during his time as Romney's economic adviser during the 2012 Presidential campaign.
Anyway, the story of comparative advantage, I actually find a quite optimistic one, funny enough. I mean, traditionally, economics has turned many off as it seems to many to really deromanticize humanity-it seems to reduce us at every turn to just a bundle of selfish wants where all we care about is our own interests and advantages, our fellow man be damned. This isn't really how I see it but many have understood things like Smith's Invisible Hand that way.
Even those who accept it as having some validity don't find it a partiuclarly appetizing way of understanding mankind and society. I mean a discussion of 'comparative' advantage might not be the thought of thing a Rousseaun artist thinks about when he waxes that the 'heart has its reasons that Reason knows not.'
As I've mentioned, I'm currently also reading Piketty-but whether you think he's right or not it's not very optimistic-basically because in the future the rate of profits in capital will outstrip the rate of growth we will see worse and worse levels of inequality of wealth the world over.
Meanwhile both many Keynesians and Market Monetarists have accepted something like 'secular stagnation'-including Sumner.
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/07/follow-up-to-my-washington-post-piece.html
With comparative advantage, we have for once an optimistic concept. On the one hand we accept the inequalities of ability between people but on the other even if one person A has an absolute advantage in everything in person B, it will still be beneficial for Person A and Person B to enter into trade together.
This is a rather 'uncanny' result-when I use this word I think of Geoff Waite.
http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-Corps-Technoculture-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822317192/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405885061&sr=1-1&keywords=geoff+waite
What comparative advantage (CA) suggests is a minimal basis for human society. for friends, for families, for lovers, etc. Or like Zizek and Lacan find-the Other will always want something from us, though divining it is another matter entirely-hardly an easy business.
No comments:
Post a Comment