quarta-feira, março 25, 2009

Para reflexão

"people go mad in crowds, and return to their sanity one by one,"
.
Retirado deste blogue obrigatório Debtdeflation
.
Hoje, traz uma diatribe contra a Economia Neoclássica e a sua mania do equilibrio. Apreciei sobretudo este apontamento (à tia de Cascais):
.
"Key here should be a rejection of neoclassical microeconomics in its entirety. This was the missing component of Keynes’s revolution. While he tried to overthrow macroeconomics shibboleths like Say’s Law, he continued to accept not merely the microeconomic concepts such as perfect competition, but also their unjustified projection into macroeconomic areas—as with his belief that the marginal productivity theory of income distribution, which is fundamentally a micro concept, applied at the macro level of wage determination.
From this failure to expunge the microeconomic foundations of neoclassical economics from post-Great Depression economics arose the “microfoundations of macroeconomics” debate that led ultimately to rational expectations representative agent macroeconomics, in which the economy is modelled as a single utility maximising individual who is blessed with perfect knowledge of the future.
.
Fortunately, behavioural economics provides the beginnings of an alternative vision as to how individuals operate in a market environment, while multi-agent modelling and network theory give us foundations for understanding group dynamics in a complex society. They explicitly emphasise what neoclassical economics has evaded: that aggregation of heterogeneous individuals results in emergent properties of the group which cannot be reduced to the behaviour of any “representative individual” amongst them. These approaches should replace neoclassical microeconomics completely.
.
The changes to economic theory beyond the micro level involve a complete recanting of the neoclassical vision. The vital first step here is to abandon the obsession with equilibrium.
The fallacy that dynamic processes must be modelled as if the system is in continuous equilibrium through time is probably the most important reason for the intellectual failure of neoclassical economics. Mathematics, sciences and engineering long ago developed tools to model out of equilibrium processes, and this dynamic approach to thinking about the economy should become second nature to economists.
...
The economic theory that should eventually emerge from the rejection of neoclassical economics and the basic adoption of dynamic methods will come much closer than neoclassical economics could ever do to meeting Marshall’s dictum that “The Mecca of the economist lies in economic biology rather than in economic dynamics” (Marshall 1920: xiv).
.
As Veblen correctly surmised over a century ago (Veblen 1898), the failure of economics to become an evolutionary science is the product of the optimising framework of the underlying paradigm, which is inherently antithetical to the process of evolutionary change. This reason, above all others, is why the neoclassical mantra that the economy must be perceived as the outcome of the decisions of utility maximising individuals must be rejected."
.

1 comentário:

CN disse...

Dou pouco ou mesmo nada por este tipo de "economics", embora de tudo se possa tirar alguma coisa de novo.

O link para a crítica da Lei de Say é interessante mas como expondo as falácias das críticas a Say.

De Say deve ler-se: a oferta de um produto constitui a procura de outros bens.

E assim não tem refutação, só se produz algo para depois procurar algo com que trocar.

A concorrência faz com que quem produz ineficientemente ou fora das preferências dos consumidores, desaparece. Assim, a tendência é que para que a produção "produz" procura de outros bens.