I wasn't expecting quite such a negative reaction to the Krugman post - just sent to the list since it looked interesting - but I'm surprised. I've found Krugman and other geographical economists to be very self-aware and thoughtful about the nature and limits of what they do, and a very good source of thought about the nature of modelling. This Krugman piece for example:
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/dishpan.html
Particularly from "the evolution of ignorance" and models as maps.
Re. the blog post, I didn't take him to be saying other economists bought into price-taking specifically, but that many think rationality is axiomatic (and, like Tim Harford peddles in "the Logic of Life", genuinely how we work as a species). Theories like e.g. rational addiction would tend to support that view: assume rationality, build everything else around it (however irrational the behaviour may appear). Personally I think you need rationality in economics about as much as gravity requires planets to love each other.
I'm also surprised to see Krugman dismissed as a politicised hack, given his constant reference to evidence to back up his assertions. I'm curious: I wonder how his criticism of Hayek and Austrian economics sits with agent modellers? Might ABM's natural Hayekian/Austrian affinities make it generally anti-Keynesian? (I know that's a daft sweeping statement, but if it provokes a response...!)
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Justin T.H. Smith
Sent: 28 August 2012 18:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] Krugman on neoclassical econs (and where ABM fits in)
Oops, forgot to reply all:
-------------------------
He's also talking about ABM and heterodox economics. Seems like David Sallach made the point that Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to more general equilibrium modeling either, e.g. the Herb Gintis reference.
As to the more general point that Krugman is a hack, his little blog post is all you need to see that. After laying out a cartoon version of textbook neoclassical economics, he says "Some economists really really believe that life is like this." Two "really"'s, really?
I've never met one of these mythical economists who actually believe "nobody has market power." Just another Krugman straw man which he can use to club those who disagree with him, especially political opponents.
"The rest of us" versus them.
Barro is right. Paul Krugman doesn't behave like an economist.
On 2012-08-28 11:06 AM, Daniel Olner wrote:
> He's talking about general neoclassical modelling here though - which is exactly what he uses in his trade model work. Or are you making a more general point about Krugman?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin T.H. Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 28 August 2012 18:00 > To: Daniel Olner > Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] Krugman on neoclassical econs (and where ABM fits in) > > Once he wanders away from international trade models, Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. As Robert J. Barro described > Krugman:
>
> "He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he's writing about."
>
>
> On 2012-08-28 9:32 AM, Daniel Olner wrote:
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/neo-fights-slightly-wonkis
>> h-and-vague/
|