I know that you are Scucca and I suspect that you are Steve Reglar. You have quoted Reglar and Yunker repeatedly at this and other forums, including Debate Politics. I asked you there to reconcile these two men's positions and you disappeared.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to reply here?

Or do you prefer to criticize my references, as is your custom when you are unable to refute someone?

Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Steve Reglar (2005) writes:

"As a tool of capitalist hegemony the doctrine of general equilibrium is very useful. It assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible, because the market is part of human nature and the most efficient form of economic organization. The theory, therefore, has a role in legitimizing capitalist hegemony."

A tool of capitalist hegemony? My, what harsh language! One can almost visualize GE theorists visiting smoke-filled rooms to accept bribes from their cigar-puffing benefactors. Indeed, Post-Autistic economists, after observing the word “axiomatic” in the title of my book (Aguilar, 1999), dismissed it out-of-hand, denouncing me as a bought-and-paid-for stooge of Big Business. Apparently, just that one word was enough to convince them of this about me.

But before we dismiss this talk of an epistemological approach being a “tool” of Big Business to “legitimize” their obviously anti-social behavior, let us at least see if the socialists are consistent. James Yunker (2007) writes:

"This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated 'profit-oriented market socialism.' In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model."

Here we read that GE Theory is not a tool of capitalist hegemony, but a tool of profit-oriented market socialism, that is, publicly-owned business enterprises (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.) that mimic contemporary market capitalism. And it is not a “tool” in the sense of legitimizing the socialists (presumably, their legitimacy is derived from emotional appeals of the “Gosh, there sure are a lot of poor people – darn capitalists!” variety), but a tool in the literal sense of defining a software model.

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

Read the rest of the paper at Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory.

Reiver is Scucca? I've always perceived Scucca as being distinctly more unpleasant than Reiver.

Why would I want to? I've made it clear that my market socialist stance is based on an understanding of the labour market. I therefore focus on microeconomic analysis into unemployment, underemployment and underpayment. That stance has meant an approach that crosses orthodox (e.g. analysis into the impact of monopsony) and heterodox (e.g. institutional economics into hierarchy and wage norms) economic schools

__________________
At the battle of Trafalgar Frances Drake was playing midfield When he heard his bird's expecting He said Once more up the khyber We will fight them on the beaches Half a league & half a guiness Arthur Mullard, on the buses That's how England won the world cup. It's moronland

Slippery fellow!

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

I wait for a reply.

Not at all! I've given a concise summary of the origins of my socialist position and how, via reference to the labour market, I can refer to the inefficiency of capitalism. It just doesn't fit well with your agenda.

With regards that agenda, you're not celebrating the usefulness of the material you refer to. Take the source from Reglar. Its usefulness is only in detailing how Keynes, via neo-Keynesianism, has been misinterpreted. Its about hammering home that the analysis cannot simply be planted within the dominant neoclassical analysis. Its therefore about realising the links between Keynesianism and heterodox schools. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with my political economic stance

__________________
At the battle of Trafalgar Frances Drake was playing midfield When he heard his bird's expecting He said Once more up the khyber We will fight them on the beaches Half a league & half a guiness Arthur Mullard, on the buses That's how England won the world cup. It's moronland

Scucca's previous position:

Scucca quotes me and replies:

I reply:

This is a remarkable claim, considering that the Phillips Curve was introduced in 1956 and Keynes dies in 1946. IS-LM Analysis was introduced in 1937, a year after Keynes’ General Theory, and I am unaware that he had any significant dispute with Hicks.

The MIT Dictionary of Economics writes:

“In [Hick’s] article ‘Mr. Keynes and the Classics’ (1937) he removed the indeterminacy from the Keynesian and loanable fund theories of interest by introducing his IS-LM curves, which have become stock tools of Keynesian analysis.”

“Stock tools” is certainly how my professors presented IS-LM analysis. None of them were particularly enthusiastic about the free market; they would have bristled at your referring to their teaching as “capitalist hegemonic invention.” That kind of phraseology is just standard socialist claptrap.

Regarding IS-LM analysis, the MIT dictionary writes:

“The model represents an interpretation of the General Theory but in directing attention to the equilibrium conditions it diverts attention from the underlying causal structure and one of the central messages of the General Theory: the uncertainty that characterizes a monetary economy.”

Diverting attention from Keynes’ use of the term “animal spirits” was certainly a goal of my professors. I distinctly recall an entire auditorium of economics students laughing out loud at its mention. “But Keynes really said that,” the professor stammered, obviously embarrassed.

It is more accurate to say that Hicks and later neo-Keynesians like Phillips and Okun formalized Keynes’ work while quietly dropping the embarrassing parts.

This is a stunning misrepresentation of the motivation for GE theory. So stunning, in fact, that I will start a new thread on this topic: Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Scucca quotes me and replies:

I reply:

Real scientists (like physicists) don't teach undergraduates something that is inconsistant with what they are teaching graduate students.

You call GE Theory "capitalist hegemonic invention," which is obviously not true.

Cristobal Young writes:

“General equilibrium theory – the mathematical analysis of a market economy as a whole – has its roots in the late 19th century works of Leon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto… However, the project failed to attract much following and soon faded into dormancy.

“It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…

“The GE framework, given sufficient mathematical complexity, is actually a grand narrative on the fragility and implausibility of perfect market equilibrium. Successive mathematical torturing has outlined an extensive list of unlikely conditions required to demonstrate general market efficiency. Mark Blaug has nicely summarized a partial inventory: ‘perfectly rational, omniscient, identical consumers; zero transaction costs; complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable contingent events, no trading at disequilibrium prices; no radical, incalculable uncertainty…; only linearly homogenous production functions; no technical progress requiring capital investment, etc’ (Blaug, 1997, p. 5)…

“For an economic system that failed to satisfy such assumptions, there seemed a need for government intervention. General equilibrium theory provided a sort of checklist for market critics.”

Reply!

I wait for a reply. At Debate Politics, I demanded a reply a half a dozen more times and now I have tracked you down to another forum. You might as well reply now. If you run, I'll just track you down again.

Venom, I'm gonna say, one of these guys is clearly a stalker concerned with
economics.
Now that's persistent!

__________________
Yowza!
The essence of loyalty is reciprocity.
Doug wants people to know my closet is heterosexual.

Whatever claims may have been made regarding the malevolent intents of GE theorists, is it implausible to claim that market competition does not rule over the realm of "normal conditions of society" in an unchallenged monopoly? Has Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, the scientific validity of which has been affirmed by Stephen Jay Gould, had no effect whatsoever on this issue?

Onion Eater simply does not understand Keynesian economics. It is imperative that we get away from the bastardised version which offers only one opportunity: the integration of neoclassical microeconomics and Macroeconomics 101. Once we move to post-Keynesianism, for example, we can see how Keynesian thought is consistent with heterodox economics (particularly Marxist crisis theory).

__________________
At the battle of Trafalgar Frances Drake was playing midfield When he heard his bird's expecting He said Once more up the khyber We will fight them on the beaches Half a league & half a guiness Arthur Mullard, on the buses That's how England won the world cup. It's moronland