29 Jul 11
Originally posted by vistesdI don't disagree at at all, the shoulders of giants are what allows us to see farther, what a waste it would be if we did not do so!
Reminds me a bit of our conversation about Post-Keynesians versus—hmmm, even the labels are dated—let’s say updated 21st century Synthesized Neoclassicals? The PKs tend to think the Keynesian/Neoclassical Synthesis stopped about, what?, 30 years ago? While the SNs think that PKs are willfully incapable of doing relevant empirical work (which the Austrians ...[text shortened]... round--what is practically impossible is often taught as being theoretically irrelevant at best?
29 Jul 11
ADDENDUM TO ABOVE POST:
When it comes to policy decisions (both in the private and public sectors), “old” and “new” are very relative notions. It takes the “new” sometimes years to filter down the academic ladder, and likely even longer to impact the policy realm. Part of that is because proving the “new” is not just a matter of rigorous econometric testing, but of proving itself in debate with the “old”. That is just what was going on for years between the New Keynesians on the one hand, and the Monetarists and various unsynthesized Neoclassicals, on the other. During the interim, policy decisions must be made. I think that many of the “quants” (from reading the book by the same name) prior to 2008 were using models that reflected theoretical constructs dating to the 80s with little modification (such as EMH/RBC), despite necessary modifications recognized in the interim by academic researchers.
Therefore, it seems as disingenuous for the up-to-date researcher to criticize policy advisors in the political economy arena for using outdated models, as it is for those guys (like Krugman) to criticize the profession for failing to develop better models—when, in fact, such models may exist, but have yet to filter from journal to proving ground to textbook, etc.
29 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaWe cross posted. I think what we're both saying is that narrow paradigmatic views are problematic, both when they are clung to (by the "old" ), and sometimes when they are dismissed in toto (by the "new" ).
I don't disagree at at all, the shoulders of giants are what allows us to see farther, what a waste it would be if we did not do so!
____________________________________
EDIT: Anyway, I was trying to fill your request for intersting discussion...
Hope you and yours are all well! 🙂
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by vistesdWell, that is the question, I guess. Are they equally disingenuous? 🙂
Therefore, it seems as disingenuous for the up-to-date researcher to criticize policy advisors in the political economy arena for using outdated models, as it is for those guys (like Krugman) to criticize the profession for failing to develop better models—when, in fact, such models may exist, but have yet to filter from journal to proving ground to textbook, etc.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by vistesdAll is good, thanks! 🙂
We cross posted. I think what we're both saying is that narrow paradigmatic views are problematic, both when they are clung to (by the "old" ), and sometimes when they are dismissed in toto (by the "new" ).
____________________________________
EDIT: Anyway, I was trying to fill your request for intersting discussion...
Hope you and yours are all well! 🙂
My point was mostly a rallying cry for anti-"paradigmism", if you will. By that I mean that thinking in terms of paradigms is certainly very helpful, but we should be aware of it becoming too narrow. So I'm not supporting always the new paradigm over the old paradigm but rather a more pragmatic view that accepts the old paradigms limitations/merits and recognizes its usefulness without having to be an acolyte in a particular church of thought.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaNot knowingly or willfully so! 🙂
Well, that is the question, I guess. Are they equally disingenuous? 🙂
But I don't think either the foundation-pokers or the move-oners of my first post are disingenuous at all. I think both are needed to enrich the discipline on a continuing basis.
But you know that I have a fondness both for heterodoxy in general, and PK in particular, so I have to be careful not to let that become disingenuous...!
29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd the thing is for both the foundation-pokers and the move-oners to strive to do so from a pragmatic, rather from a narrowly paradigmatic view. I think that's what the PKIs were trying to do in the 80s, and succeeded. But, as you know, my own academic development stopped there...
All is good, thanks! 🙂
My point was mostly a rallying cry for anti-"paradigmism", if you will. By that I mean that thinking in terms of paradigms is certainly very helpful, but we should be aware of it becoming too narrow. So I'm not supporting always the new paradigm over the old paradigm but rather a more pragmatic view that accepts the old paradigms l ...[text shortened]... recognizes its usefulness without having to be an acolyte in a particular church of thought.
I will join that rallying cry!
29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdHaha, exactly, I would have thought you'd be one of the first in line to agree that orthodoxy often becomes too entrenched. I think we actually are in syntony here, no? Just that we are thinking differently about what Keynes means by new and old...
Not knowingly or willfully so! 🙂
But I don't think either the foundation-pokers or the move-oners of my first post are disingenuous at all. I think both are needed to enrich the discipline on a continuing basis.
But you know that I have a fondness both for heterodoxy in general, and PK in particular, so I have to be careful not to let that become disingenuous...!
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaEMBARRASED!!! 😳 I used “disingenuously” improperly. Lo siento! I meant no disparagement, old friend. I really did not mean shallowly or insincerely! I really am embarrassed--and apologize sincerely!
Haha, exactly, I would have thought you'd be one of the first in line to agree that orthodoxy often becomes too entrenched. I think we actually are in syntony here, no? Just that we are thinking differently about what Keynes means by new and old...
29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThank you! And, yes, we are in syntony. I think perhaps an error of some, like myself, who have root philosophical tendencies toward heterodoxy think, wrongly, that all those who tend to work from within a broad orthodoxy are necessarily paradigmiatically entrenched. Whereas, much like the Neoclassical/Keynesian synthesis, the mainstream orthodoxy moves forward by synthesis--and is more flexible than heterodox critics are likely to give it credit for. When I was active, institutional economics had not be fully synthesized into the micro mainstream, and internal labor market theorists were still considered somewhat heterodox by, say, Beckerian human capital theorists (my effort was to show a kind of synthesis between the two based on transaction costs; but I that is now "old" ).
No worries, I didn't even read it that way. 🙂