Economics Questions

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

vive la insurrection — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:27:38 GMT

To go again on the Lachmann / Shackle thing:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/search?q=lachmann

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

abskebabs — Fri, 13 May 2011 02:14:54 GMT

Mr Kuehn, as far as a neoclassical synthesis goes, especially on the micro level, you may want to get in touch with Paul A. Cleveland. He made the following lecture at the ASC this year.

Also, would your model utilise a representative agent(firm and consumer). I suspect you might find important characteristics such as Cantillon effects impossibly obscured by such an approach.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

William — Fri, 13 May 2011 02:02:41 GMT

Meh whateves, that comment doesn't mean anything. I can't comment much on the conclusions of Lachmann other than he seems very very interesting, and I think his work demands one take him very seriously, regardless of what conclusions I may agree or disagree with in the end. He certainly does not deserve to be the focus of character assassination. And he most certainly is an Austrian.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Aristippus — Fri, 13 May 2011 01:48:29 GMT

It may be helpful to see what Rothbard thought of Lachmann:

"I sound off at you on Lachmann because I’ve been appalled, since reading
some of the papers written by the [summer] fellows out here [at the
Institute for Humane Studies in Menlo Park, California] at the extent to
which Lachmannia has permeated their thinking. I am convinced that
Mises would have considered Lachmann (an institutionalist, nihilist, and
Keynesian) an “anti-economist,” and he would have been right. Lachmann
is not an Austrian at all. Back to Mises!"

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

William — Thu, 12 May 2011 21:27:56 GMT

Lachmann goes on a bit about Popper, Keynes, and Austrianism briefly at the end of this lecture too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhR9XVIVmc

somewhere around the 1:09 mark

Also Jonathan sent me an article by Lachmann about Mises and Shackle; Ihaven't really read it yet but, if anyone wants it PM me and I'll Email it to them.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:31:47 GMT

Lachmann thought that Keynes took subjectivity to a far greater level than any Austrian. He was deeply influenced by Shackle, and in that sense he had some "Keynesian" qualities. However, he was an Austrian as far as market coordination went.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:27:15 GMT

William posted this last week: Lachmann discussing the commonalities shared by the two schools, but he does not call himself an Austro-Keynesian therein.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

justinx0r — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:24:39 GMT

Well I'm sure I didn't imagine what I read. It had to do with his and Keynes disequilibrium analysis and subjective expectations. I'll spend some more time looking for it - I'll PM you if/when I find it.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:21:41 GMT

One of my econ professors at UTD, Peter Lewin, was a student of Lachmann and he wrote several bios of Lachmann, and he does not acknowledge this 'austro-keynesian' label. (he actually wrote the Lachmann bio for the Mises Institute)

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

justinx0r — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:17:55 GMT

I wish, it was in an article I read but can't remember where I found it. I've been trying to find it for a while.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:13:21 GMT

justinx0r:

Ludwig Lachmann called himself an 'Austro-Keynesian' and his work has similarities to the Post-Keynesianism of today.

May you cite where he said/wrote that he was an austrokeynesian? I have read alot of Lachmann and I never heard him write such a thing.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:49:13 GMT

But it is not derived from premises about human action seeking satisfaction, so I'd hesitate to call it "praxeological".

Maybe Hayek did not put as much emphasis on the axiom of human action as Mises did, but Hayek was a follower of Menger (who do you think influenced Mises?) and did practice "methodological individualism". So, in that sense, Hayek's economics very much did revolve around rational, economizing man. In Prices and Production Hayek isn't writing a treatise on economics, so it wouldn't make much sense to spend a lot of time on methodology and elucidating the exact deductive path Hayek took to reach his conclusions. That doesn't mean there wasn't a method involved, and I think there is a lot of evidence in Hayek's prior writings (namely, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle) and from looking at his influences (Mises and Menger).

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Think Blue — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:44:58 GMT

Tagged.

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Daniel Kuehn — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:42:23 GMT

re: "That a theory is praxeologically derived doesn't mean its incompatible with something that isn't praxeologically derived."

Right.

re: "The conclusions he derives in Prices and Production, however, are praxeological in the sense that they aren't based on empirical observation. It's a work of pure logic."

Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. It's a theoretical work, to be sure. But it is not derived from premises about human action seeking satisfaction, so I'd hesitate to call it "praxeological". As you rightly say, of course, this doesn't mean that it's inconsistent with praxeological.

But basis in empirical observation seems to be a low bar for praxeology. If that's all that's required then Keynes's General Theory is praxeology too!

Re: Keynesian-Austrian synthesis

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:36:01 GMT

That a theory is praxeologically derived doesn't mean its incompatible with something that isn't praxeologically derived. The conclusions he derives in Prices and Production, however, are praxeological in the sense that they aren't based on empirical observation. It's a work of pure logic.