Ask away.
AMA. I'm a Post Keynesian.
-
How many years have you been trolling EJRM. I have seen a post keynesian guy get into argumetns in many Macro threads, and given that you guys are endangered specis, I am assuming that guy is you.
We're heavily on the upswing - we've won over a lot of young people since the Global Financial Crisis.
-
How many years have you been trolling EJRM. I have seen a post keynesian guy get into argumetns in many Macro threads, and given that you guys are endangered specis, I am assuming that guy is you.
We're heavily on the upswing - we've won over a lot of young people since the Global Financial Crisis.
When there are a few of you, winning over a few people may seem like a lot. Your share is still shrinking.
-
Also I asked for evidence not for you to ask me a question.
The question was rhetorical.
The number of departments have shrunk (for example you lost notredame years ago). Your departments become more orthodox overtime and there is only a small number of you. So collectively 20 students come from the 3 or 4 schools, only a fraction will continue in the profession especially because employment oppurtunities are sparse. Mean mainstream programs have increased numbers and are gradauting more students than 20 years ago. Your numbers are shrinking, whether you admit it or not.
-
Also I asked for evidence not for you to ask me a question.
The question was rhetorical.
The number of departments have shrunk (for example you lost notredame years ago). Your departments become more orthodox overtime and there is only a small number of you. So collectively 20 students come from the 3 or 4 schools, only a fraction will continue in the profession especially because employment oppurtunities are sparse. Mean mainstream programs have increased numbers and are gradauting more students than 20 years ago. Your numbers are shrinking, whether you admit it or not.I think Post-Keynesian Economics had been in secular decline from the 1980s-mid 2000s (from as you mentioned, the loss of Notre Dame and Cambridge more generally). The argument is that it's picked up since 2008.
UMKC didn't exist as heterodox institution until recently. We have Kingston now, a strong holdling in Ottawa, more unification in a place like UMass-Amherst (now that the Marxists are basically gone), significant and influential people in places in places like CUNY and Stonybrook, across Wallstreet (Chief Economists in places like Goldman Sachs, PIMCO, S&P, etc.), and an increasingly lively internet presence. This wasn't so noticeable 10 years ago. More importantly, we've begun winning the theoretical debates (i.e. endogenous money, anti-austerity, the "crowding out" myth, and most recently the notion that demand increases productivity, better known as Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law).
Give it another 5 or 10 years, and Post-Keynesians will represent an even more significant component of the Economics profession and debate.
-
- "anti-austerity", unclear what that even means, but thinking about countercyclical fiscal policies, it's you and 5000 DSGE models and papers
- the "crowding out" myth: you and the 10000 other people finding multipliers above 1.
- demand increases productivity: yeah, it's called market size effects and yes, since Schmookler we know it affects innovation and hence productivity.
What is completely anti-scientific about these people is that they have this underdog narrative when the mainstream is stock full of these debates and contributions. That, and complete snakesoil salesmen like Steve Keen
the "crowding out" myth, and most recently the notion that demand increases productivity, better known as Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law
Also I asked for evidence not for you to ask me a question.
The question was rhetorical.
The number of departments have shrunk (for example you lost notredame years ago). Your departments become more orthodox overtime and there is only a small number of you. So collectively 20 students come from the 3 or 4 schools, only a fraction will continue in the profession especially because employment oppurtunities are sparse. Mean mainstream programs have increased numbers and are gradauting more students than 20 years ago. Your numbers are shrinking, whether you admit it or not.I think Post-Keynesian Economics had been in secular decline from the 1980s-mid 2000s (from as you mentioned, the loss of Notre Dame and Cambridge more generally). The argument is that it's picked up since 2008.
UMKC didn't exist as heterodox institution until recently. We have Kingston now, a strong holdling in Ottawa, more unification in a place like UMass-Amherst (now that the Marxists are basically gone), significant and influential people in places in places like CUNY and Stonybrook, across Wallstreet (Chief Economists in places like Goldman Sachs, PIMCO, S&P, etc.), and an increasingly lively internet presence. This wasn't so noticeable 10 years ago. More importantly, we've begun winning the theoretical debates (i.e. endogenous money, anti-austerity, the "crowding out" myth, and most recently the notion that demand increases productivity, better known as Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law).
Give it another 5 or 10 years, and Post-Keynesians will represent an even more significant component of the Economics profession and debate. -
- Too bad Alesina, Barro, Cochrane, Rogoff and Reinhart became the face of mainstream Economics as far as the austerity debate went, then. Yet Keen here is the snake-oil salesmen.
- It took Kruggles and IS-LM-believing non-conventional economists to make the case that "this isn't true in the liquidity trap". Unfortunately for those 5000 papers saying the multiplier is more than 1, you had 10000 economists arguing the opposite.
- This is not conventional economics whatsoever - even hysteresis is on the edge of the overton window. Technology and productivity improvements are generally assumed to be exogenous in the Solow growth model and in most models (indeed, most of the commentary about Romer's Endogenous Growth theory is how most Economists ignored it)
- Posts like these are like the rebuttals claiming that, indeed, some DSGEs did have financial sector models. Yet they were usually just modeling frictions and nothing resembling how banking actually works (i.e. still including the Loanable Funds theory).
- Speaking of Steve Keen, how many Economists that are not NYTimes columnists have a higher number of Twitter followers than him? (hint: it's a small handful)