Comments on Dorf on Law: Bastard Keynesianism Today

Nice information, valuable and excellent design, a...

2012-01-09T22:16:57.174-05:00

Nice information, valuable and excellent design, as share good stuff with good ideas and concepts, lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need, thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.For more info on wedding dresses 2012

and lace wedding

gowns, please visit us at: http://www.ambersbridal.com

good review i like your style تقنية

Here’s a list of tools you will need to start: Jew...

2010-10-16T04:15:34.033-04:00

Here’s a list of tools you will need to start: Jewelers’pandora jewellery wire cutters - If you can only afford one pair, get memory wire shears. pandora charms These are designed to make clean cuts on tough memory wire, so can also be used for pandora charms uk softer wires. Chain-nose pliers sometimes called cheap pandora charms needle-nose pliers – Very versatile for picking up and grasping small items, pandora charms sale bending eye pins, closing jumps rings, even closing crimp beads. discount pandora charms Round-nose pliers – Used for creating loops on beaded head and eye pins. Can also be used for winding your own jump rings and as the second pliers you’cheap pandora ll need for closing jump rings. Optional pliers – Wire-looping pliers which have several graduated circumferences to allow you to form perfectly uniform jump rings and loops in place of the pandora discount uk round-nose pliers mentioned above. Crimping pliers which have little notches to allow you to both flatten a crimp bead and then bend it to form a rounded finished look instead of the flat crimp you pandora uk get using the chain-nose pliers. As for materials, I recommend some assortment packs of beads in coordinating colors, some decorative metal spacers, seed beads in both silver and gold These can serve as spacers and beautifully set off pandora sale your other beads., tube-shaped crimp beads Buy the best you can find – these are what hold it all together!, head and eye pins. Other than that, let your choice of project be your guide. You might want some silver or pewter charms.

If you're a plus size woman you've probabl...

2010-08-20T23:06:16.457-04:00

If you're a plus size woman you've probably Moncler noticed that the majority of coats in stores today are moncler veste designed with women that are supposed to be moncler doudoune shaped like a toothpick. It can be difficult to moncler hommes find a coat that not only looks good but also doesn't break the moncler femmes bank. Coats typically cost a lot of money so it's in your doudoune moncler femmes best interest to shop wisely.A lot of women doudoun moncler hommes make the mistake of only thinking about their dress doudoune moncler femmes or skirt when putting together an doudoune moncler hommes outfit. However, it's important to keep in mind that the majoriy of moncler-gilet people are going to see you with a coat on

Thanks to Patrick for this two-part post. Yes, th...

2009-12-22T13:23:49.930-05:00

Thanks to Patrick for this two-part post. Yes, the McCloskey critique is, to my mind, absolutely devastating to all of modern academic economics (theoretical and empirical). The mathematization of economics is certainly a different post -- actually, as McCloskey has demonstrated, it is several different books -- but you're right that it's all part of Samuelson's overall damage to the field.

The politically liberal American Keynesians (Samuelson, Solow, and now Samuelon's nephew Summers) are appealing to someone like me because of what they are not (policy conservatives) than what they are (bastard Keynesians).

And, again (and despite my Liberal and Leftist ori...

2009-12-22T11:23:52.393-05:00

And, again (and despite my Liberal and Leftist orientations), what role does Samuelson play in all this?

"Paul Samuelson, though a splendid man and a wonderful economist (honestly), is a symbol of the pointlessness of qualitative theorems. Samuelson, actually, is more than merely a symbol--he made and taught and defended the Two Sins [the 'two leading methods' above], at one time almost single-handedly. It was a brave stance. But it had terrible outcomes. Samuelson advocated the 'scientific' program of producing qualitative theorems, developing qualitative-theorem-generating-functions (I am making an insider's statistical joke: ha ha; such is economic humor), such as 'revealed preference' and 'overlapping generations' models and above all the machinery of Max U. He was involved also (it turns out somewhat surprisingly) in the early propagation of significance testing, the 'scientific' mehtod of empirical work running on statistical significance.... Two sins, one scientist."

[Owing to character limitations, this comment is i...

2009-12-22T11:22:55.593-05:00

[Owing to character limitations, this comment is in two parts.]

Neil,

This is a delightfully informative, insightful and well-written post.

Re: "(They were also the leaders in the mathematization of economics, which Samuelson pioneered and promoted throughout his career. But that is another subject entirely.)"

Perhaps you could address this at some point too, as I wonder perhaps if it in fact is "another subject entirely" (well, it's no doubt another post entirely!). I think the--in many respects successful--attempt at mathematization of economics has had insidious effects on the discipline and led to its "unreal" character over time ('It would of course be idiotic to object to the mere existence of mathematics in economics.'). As you probably know, this is the subject matter of several of Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey's books, beginning with The Rhetoric of Economics (1985) and perhaps most eloquently expressed in Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics (1994). In the latter, she notes that "Economists and other academics in the 1960s espoused a positivism notable cruder and more masculinist than the philosophical kind. The crude version persists." One insidious effect, addressed by Amartya Sen, among a few others (e.g., Hausman and McPherson), is noted by McCloskey: "Economists believe that scientific and ethical questions are distinct, the one 'positive' and the other 'normative,' and that real scientists ought to (hmmm....) stick to the positive. I know it's hard to believe, but most economists really do think that the positive/normative distinction lets them out of any reflection on ethics [a reason many economists pay homage to some cherry-picked ideas from Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations but fail to read or take seriously The Theory of Moral Sentiments]."

As McCloskey has written in a pamphlet, The Secret Sins of Economics (2002):

"It is not difficult to explain to outsiders what is so dramatically, insanely, sinfully wrong with the two leading methods in high-level economics, qualitative theorems and statistical significance. It is VERY difficult to explain it to insiders, because the insiders cannot believe that methods in which they have been elaborately trained and which are used by the people they admire most are simply unscientific nonsense, having literally nothing to do with whatever actual scientific contribution (and I repeat, it is considerable) that economics makes to the understanding of society. So they simply cannot grasp arguments that are plain to people not socialized in economics. [....] Samuelson himself famously showed in the 1940s that 'factor prices' (such as wages) are 'equalized' by trade in steel and wheat and so forth--as a qualitative theorem, under such and such assumptions, A. It COULD be an argument against free trade. But shortly afterwards it was shown by Samuelson himself, among others) that if you make alternative assumptions, A', you get very different conclusions. And so it went, and goes, with the limit achieved only in boredom, all over economics. Make this-and-such assumptions, A, about the following game-theoretic model and you can show that a group of unsocialized individuals will form a civil society. Make another set of assumptions, A', and they won't. And so on and so forth. Blah, blah, blah, blah, to no scientific end."