Economía marxista para el Siglo XXI


Michael Roberts Blog

Paul Krugman recently launched into a new attack on the priests of neoclassical economics, Eugene Fama (the new Nobel prize winner – see my  post, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-noblest-fama-and-shiller/) and John Cochrane in a recent post (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/fallacies-of-immaculate-causation/). Krugman reckoned that Fama had committed an error of ‘immaculate causation’ whereby Fama started with an accounting identity, in this case savings = investment, and treated it as a causal relationship, namely savings => (leads to) investment, but makes no attempt to prove that this is the direction of causation.  As Krugman says: “Why not the other way around?” After all, he says that Keynesian models do the opposite of Fama’s neoclassical (Say’s law) causation and reckon the “investment (determined by animal spirits) does in fact determine the level of savings.”

Krugman goes onto argue that if consumers (for some reason due to a change of ‘animal spirits’) start to save more, the accounting…

Ver la entrada original 1.630 palabras más

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Nube de etiquetas