William K. Black
February 29, 2016 Brooklyn, N.Y.
A blogger has trolled all heterodox economists as believers in the “occult.” More precisely, he is upset about “econ people” (who are likely not economists) and who tweet him or post comments on his blog site. The blogger further complains that these commenters say that they believe in heterodox economics and “new methodologies [that] are poised to topple mainstream economics.” He then goes on to say: “My typical response is to ask what these new methodologies are. But incredibly, I can almost never get an answer.”
The UMKC economics department is chock full of heterodox economists who share the blogger’s experience. We too get weird blogs and tweets that are long on revolutionary conclusions and short on specifics. Some of these messages come from folks who say they are heterodox and some from those that write to denounce heterodox economics. We also get an endless stream of policy nostrums from orthodox economists that promise to transform America (in good ways). They have, collectively, transformed America in terrible ways.
By L. Randall Wray
I just came across a very interesting bit of research, A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists by Leonhard Dobusch and Jakob Kapeller; you can find it here.
I realize this is not going to be of interest to many of our readers, as it is a sort of “inside the halls of academia” analysis. What the authors do is to look at the strategies of editors running the top orthodox and the top heterodox journals in economics. Actually it might be a bit unfair to label these strategies, as the authors do not mean to imply that editorial policy knowingly pursues the strategies. Instead, the article looks at the ex post results.
In a nutshell, what they find is that the articles published in orthodox journals do not cite the research published in heterodox journals. NO SURPRISE THERE! But they also find some startling self-defeating practices pursued by heterodox journals.
This is the last graduate heterodox microeconomics lecture presented by Dr. Fred Lee for Academic Year 2013/2014.
Stephanie’s latest podcast. This episode is a broad-ranging discussion of conventional economics and the heterodox alternatives to IS/LM, Ricardian equivalence, among others.
On March 21, 2014, Marc Lavoie of University of Ottawa presented a seminar on Heterodox and Post-Keynesian Economics at University of Missouri Kansas City. Prof. Lavoie graciously provided his slides and they available below the video.
By Payam Sharifi
The subject and discussion of Ethics for economists is a recent but welcome phenomenon. The creation of the documentary “Inside Job” highlighted the ethical issues facing economists. Various outlets, consisting of many from outside the economics profession as well as some inside, have been demanding that economists and economics itself adopt a code of ethics. Many articles, blogs, and academic papers since that time have been beating the drum for a code to be adopted, as a simple Google search will show. The recent Reinhart and Rogoff flub has also reinvigorated this debate. The objective of this exposition is to show why economics (as it exists currently) cannot, and will not, ever be able to adopt that code of ethics. Well, why not…as I’m sure some of you are asking. Many other professions have a code of ethics that they adhere to…why is it that economics cannot do the same? There are in fact many reasons why this is so. I also advance another approach to economics that has existed for decades, if not longer, in the search to answer the question that forms this essay. Another, but seemingly unrelated topic that is sometimes debated among mainstream economists is the need for economic theory itself to change. As we seek to answer the question of whether Modern economics can be an Ethical science, we will find that the question of economic theory is in fact related. Continue reading
By William K. Black
The UMKC economics department is featured in an article in the current Playboy that discusses the failure of theoclassical economics and economists to admit their theoretical and policy errors. The devotion of theoclassical economists to those errors has proven so dogmatic that their disastrous policies have created the ever more criminogenic environments that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises. Continue reading