>>54 2019-04-25 08:59:46
Can someone explain this in simple terms? Everything I've come across is too big brain for me. Apparently it's a fatal criticism of bourgeoisie economics. I don't know anything about it and can't find anything on the internet, so I'm after your help.
>>60 2019-04-25 10:45:17
was basically a theoretical battle between American neoclassical economists and British Sraffian economists. The Sraffians won but because bourgeois economics is a pseudoscience, everyone basically ignored it and simply moved on like nothing really happened
>>62 2019-04-25 12:45:29
>>60
Ok, but what did they discuss in the battle? I can't find something to read about it that's not big brain.
>>71 2019-04-27 10:19:59
Bourgeois economics usually looks at production from the viewpoint of a small company's boss. That is, you start with some input prices as fixed and given and market prices as also given, you orient yourself using this data and then you do something, and since you are a small fish in a big ocean, it's seen as no big problem if we ignore the effects of your own activities on prices. Resources are aggregated into a one-dimensional thing by just counting up money costs. Relations between prices and quantities produced and demanded are seen as monotonic. (A monotonic relationship between two variables is when you plot them in a 2D diagram with each axis representing one variable and the curve your eyes follow from left to right either goes up and up or down and down, but not up and down or down and up.)

The "proof" for this requires abstracting away that you can't transform just anything into anything else, you may change what you have by exchange, but that's not doing the same. And pretending otherwise is solipsism. Models that have distinct types of capital show non-monotonic patterns (called re-switching). If the patterns between quantities requested and prices aren't monotonic, then how can scarcity be captured in prices?

Models where means of production are treated like one homogeneous thing (this sort of capital model is referred to as "silly putty" by some critics) are still the most common way economics is taught because they are the most "simple and elegant" models. Translation: We couldn't prove what we wanted to prove when using more realistic models, in fact we found the opposite.
>>72 2019-04-28 00:51:52
>>62

~give me an explanation of Phd level economic disputes for a brainlet

lol
>>100 2019-04-30 10:23:42
>>72
The funny thing about your comment is that 99 % of PhD level economists do not understand the debates either. Otherwise they would not sprout the bullshit that was disputed in the debates.

Quick Reply
~bluetext +embedYTvidid **spoiler**
Flair:

Image/Video (4MB limit):



By using this website, I agree to the terms and conditions




All content on supremereality.us is user generated and does not necessarily reflect the views of the owner(s) and/or developer(s) of supremereality.us. Report a Bug