Why Neoclassical Economics Fails – A Deep Dive
#EconomicJustice, #FinancialCrisis, #NeoclassicalEconomics, #PolicyReform
Mainstream economics is flawed. Discover why neoclassical economics fails and how alternative models offer real-world solutions.
https://socialjusticeaustralia.com.au/why-neoclassical-economics-fails/
It's fascinating to hear Michael Beckley misunderstand China, despite being well-informed on the raw facts. Because he's trying to cram those facts into a one-size-fits-all neoclassical economic frame. It simply doesn't fit a country with a totally different political-economic system from the US, and a massive, diverse territory with a huge population.
https://opentodebate.org/debate/has-chinas-power-peaked/
(1/?)
#Economy #Economics #NeoclassicalEconomics #IntellectualFraud: "The question we should be asking, then, is whether there is something wrong with mainstream economics. Mainstream economists should perhaps re-examine their core beliefs, or maybe we need a new “mainstream” altogether.
To be sure, Krugman notes that “one strand of argument involved parallels with the inflation of the 1970s.” But this only grazes the problem. The real issue is that most of today’s leading mainstream economists were trained in the 1970s, and their worldview – not just the facts, but the theory – was fixed back then. On macroeconomic issues such as inflation, the influences of general equilibrium theory, inflation-unemployment trade-offs, and monetarism remain strong. The legacies of Kenneth Arrow, Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, and Milton Friedman live on.
That earlier generation’s project was partly scientific, partly political. As “social scientists,” they believed in the power of mathematics, which they borrowed from the celestial mechanics of previous centuries. Politically, they sought to defend capitalism against the Soviet challenge during the Cold War. By uniting these objectives, they fashioned the market-oriented mathematical straitjacket in which today’s mainstream economists were raised – and from which they cannot escape. Yesterday’s Wunderkinder – including Summers and Krugman – are today’s tired old men."
"#MainstreamEconomics has consistently understated the economic damage of #ClimateChange, according to two recent reports. [..]
"The models are relied upon by investors, politicians, central bank governors and influential bodies like the #IntergovernmentalPanelOnClimateChange (#IPCC)."
#MainstreamEconomists accused of playing down #climate threat
https://climatechangenews.com/2023/08/08/economics-climate-threat-models/
#EconomicsOfClimateChange #NeoclassicalEconomics #GlobalWarming #Nordhaus
Mainstream economics is a fake origin story
#neoliberalism #neoclassicaleconomics #ClimateJustice #postgrowth
The bear, the tiger, and the trade unionist by @jks
https://jksteinberger.medium.com/the-bear-the-tiger-and-the-trade-unionist-4b25df5fb3a9
"Steve Keen has been exposing the ways mainstream #NeoclassicalEconomists—including winners of the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics— have been arriving at their absurdly optimistic numbers regarding #ClimateChange, and they’re terrifying. In this interview with Colin Bruce Anthes, Keen goes through prevalent examples in detail .. "
Exposing Apocalyptic Economics with #SteveKeen
#EconomicsOfClimateChange #GlobalWarming #NeoclassicalEconomics #Nordhaus
@PublicationsPro
"Unemployment is as low as it can realistically get (3.3%) for the labour market to continue to operate"
Why is this the limit of "realistic"? Especially given reporting of unemployment statistics only include those 'actively' looking for jobs, they're not a full tally of those out of work. Also that unemployment benefits are still kept low, in case a livable level discourages seeking work. Why is it not realistic to get this down to zero?
