4 ms·
“Modern economists” aren’t really a thing, at least in the sense that a consensus or collective understanding of economics is shared by a group denominated as s
by fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
“Modern economists” aren’t really a thing, at least in the sense that a consensus or collective understanding of economics is shared by a group denominated as such.
There is vigorous disagreement in the field regarding just about everything. The title of the underlying article may more appropriately be, “Popular Economics for Non-Academics.”
- notahacker 4y agoThere is vigorous disagreement in the field regarding just about everything, but some of the few things they agree on (and the key fault lines for what they disagree on) didn't exist at the time Kapital was written.
- boppo1 4y agoWhat are the few things they agree on?
- mamonster 4y agoSubjectivism vs Labour theory of value is a pretty easy one.
- unmole 4y agoKrugman and Manikw are ideological adversaries. They both wrote Macroeconomics textbooks which fully agree with each other.
- UmbertoNoEco 4y agokrugman and mankiw are adversaries in the sense one prefers the current world neoliberal order designed for the benefit of the us to be led by democrats and the other prefers it to be led by republicans to the average citizen of the world they are indistinguishable
- notahacker 4y agoMost of Econ 101, as a sibling comment notes, from basic approaches (definitions, deductive reasoning from models using algebra, testing of models with data) to detail (marginalism, "new consensus" macro modelling). Macroeconomics and econometrics are two major subfields which literally didn't exist in Marx's day: economists may disagree significantly on conclusions and somewhat less significantly on certain assumptions models make, but they're focusing on the same variables (interest rates matter and fiscal policy somewhat matters, inflation is a thing which can be reduced, boosting employment and staving of recessions is more difficult) and doing similar maths.