Posts tagged ‘John Maynard Keynes’

May 4, 2010

COMMENT: Can capitalism survive? [Joseph Stiglitz]

Theories of imperfect and asymmetric information in markets had undermined every one of the ‘efficient market’ doctrines, even before they became fashionable in the Reagan-Thatcher era. Bruce Greenwald and I had explained that Adam Smith’s hand was not in fact invisible: it wasn’t there. Sanford Grossman and I had explained that if markets were as efficient in transmitting information as the free marketeers claimed, no one would have any incentive to gather and process it. Free marketeers, and the special interests that benefited from their doctrines, paid little attention to these inconvenient truths.

While economists who criticised the ruling free-market paradigm often still employed, as a matter of convenience, simple models of ‘rational’ expectations (that is, they assumed that individuals ‘rationally’ used all the information that they had available), they departed from the ruling paradigm in assuming that different individuals had access to different information. Their aim was to show that the standard paradigm was no longer valid when there was even this seemingly small and obviously reasonable change in assumptions. They showed, for instance, that unfettered markets were not efficient, and could be characterised by persistent unemployment. But if the economy behaves so poorly when such small realistic changes are made to the paradigm, what could we expect if we added further elements of realism, such as bouts of irrational optimism and pessimism, the ‘panics and manias’ that break out repeatedly in markets all over the world?

[READ THE REST]

Advertisements
April 7, 2010

COMMENT: Marx och Keynes [Paul Mattick]

Den klassiska ekonomin, vars början vanligtvis leds tillbaka till Adam Smith, fick sin bästa framställning men också sitt slut genom David Ricardo. Ricardo tog, som Marx skrev, “motsättningen mellan klassintressena till utgångspunkt för sina forskningar, motsättningar mellan arbetslön och profit, profit och jordränta, som han naivt uppfattar som samhälleliga naturlagar. Men därmed hade den borgerliga politiska ekonomin också nått en gräns som den inte förmår överskrida”[1], eftersom en fortsatt kritisk utveckling endast kunde leda fram till en insikt om det kapitalistiska produktionssystemets motsägelser och gränser. Genom att göra vad som inte längre kunde göras av borgerliga ekonomer betraktade Marx sig som den borgerliga ekonomins sanne arvtagare – men också som dess förstörare.

[READ THE REST]