I'm called a "marixist".
This is apropos of mainstream economists -- if someone is to the left of Larry Summers, they must be "Marxist". Completely does not compute for them how anyone could be so crazy...
My sense is that if one writes a conservative or mainstream blog, blogging could be a really advantageous asset on the job market and I think it should be. As in all things, however, there is a payoff to hitting the cultural median sweetspot. That's just not going to happen here. I'm perfectly aware I'm only going to ruffle feathers by saying what I actually think in front of typical economists... If my actual thoughts were conservative, this wouldn't be a problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, that's a problem all right. I have been to Veblen conferences many times in my adult life and almost invariably, there will be some confused clown who categorizes Veblenian thought as some sort of Marxism light. Since Veblen almost never mentions Marx in his extensive writings, they rarely have much of a case to make.
ReplyDeleteAs nearly as I can tell, the only influence Marx had on Veblen was that Veblen once read some Marx and concluded that if someone as lightweight as Marx could do political economy, certainly he could do it too.
If anyone thinks that everyone to the "left" of Larry freaking Summers is a Marxist, it is obvious they haven't done much serious reading in their lives. And if my observations of this type hold true, they are also too damn dumb to get laid.
You confuse invective for substance. Your anonymity is required because you say what you say the way that you say it.
ReplyDeleteThe interwebs are filled with left-wing bloggers that "say what they actually think" and say it in words they're proud to put their (real) name on.
«I'm called a "marixist".»
ReplyDeleteJust like Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro is called an illegal immigrant far left extremist, never mind a secret Muslim indonesian.
As to anonimity, GregM has already given you a "friendly warning", as if he were your benevolent Godfather, that what you write is career-destroying, and invited you to publish your real name.
Don't make his day :-).
«left-wing bloggers that "say what they actually think"»
ReplyDeleteAnd then get "friendly warnings" from an influential member of their chosen profession as to the likely effect on their careers of doing so?
Sure, America has free speech; and economics departments also are free to hire whoever they thin k maximizes donor contributions.
I think pushmedia1 is right. You are anonymous not because of your Veblenian views but because of how you say what you say.
ReplyDeleteIf you have veblenian (or heterodox) beliefs that you can back up with solid economic reasoning and data then you have no need to be anonymous. The mainstream may not agree, but they will be forced to listen, and you will get published.
Just look at Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis. They openly advocate for an evolutionary approach to economics. They have used a wide range of sources from evolutionary psychology to anthropology in their work. They have even coauthored papers with anthropologists like Robert Boyd. Thus they are hardly mainstream, but well respected by the mainstream.
Yes, you may not get tenure at Harvard, (as happened to Bowles and Gintis) but you can find a good position somewhere.
Also, the biggest beef the mainstream has with heterodox views is that many heterodox do not understand the assumptions and framework of the mainstream.
Take for example the concept of utility maximization. I have seen many heterodox economists claim that people don't intentionally try to maximize utility, therefore using utility maximization is bad economics.
But utility maximization does not require an agent's intention to maximize utility. If an agent has consistent preferences then economists can use utility maximization as a representation of that fact. No intentionality to max utils is needed on the part of the agent. So don't make mistakes like this and you will be fine.
In general, I think the profession is less ideologically driven than you seem to believe. If you open up to people you consider mainstream I think you will find they share some of your uneasiness about the mainstream's approach and conclusions.
-Signed,
Anonymous.
Re: "If you open up to people you consider mainstream I think you will find they share some of your uneasiness about the mainstream's approach and conclusions."
ReplyDeleteOh I have, and to economists who were definitely not right-wingers, only I've been thoroughly disappointed at the response and quickly realized that it was a mistake to have opened my mouth in the first place.
I'd rather write exactly what I think anonymously rather than make that mistake again.
Re: "The interwebs are filled with left-wing bloggers that "say what they actually think" and say it in words they're proud to put their (real) name on."
And, once I'm tenured, I'll be proud to do the same. My feeling is that Stiglitz and Krugman wisely held their tongues until they had won their epaulettes... Since they've spoken their minds, they are now hated -- hated -- by many economists.
Nevertheless, I'll try to tone down my rhetoric in a nod to economists' tender sensitivities...
Also, I think many people do not understand how jarring it is to merely adopt different body language than the person you are speaking with, much less to express the view that that person's profession, who they identify with deeply, has largely been counterproductive, even if done in the most courteous way possible.
Huh? People love stiglitz's and krugman's economics. It's their politics, which doesn't seemed to be informed by their own economic analyses that is frustrating.
ReplyDeleteFor example Stiglitz never applies his asymmetric information paradigm to gov't. In his world there are only market failures and not gov't failures. Constitency counts.
^me again,
ReplyDeleteAlso I can't believe that you would spend 8 years of your life writing papers that you seem to want to disavow once you get tenure. Man (or Woman) up and just say what you think.
«can't believe that you would spend 8 years of your life writing papers that you seem to want to disavow once you get tenure.»
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of careerists that do much worse than that» to get tenure. Typically suck up to whoever is likely to be in the tenure committe, take advantage of their spouse and ignore their children, exploit mercilessly their grad students, cleverly plagiarize anything they can, fake theorems and data.
Then when they get tenure, complete change, they make clear that the guys they have been sucking up to are idiots, divorce the spouse and get a cuter even if less supportive one, exploit mercilessly their grad students (some things never change), ...
Also when one publishes papers it is usually possible to obfuscate research which is not quite mainstream and pass it under the radar.
Then one after gaining tenure can actually also make plain what it actually means.
«If you have veblenian (or heterodox) beliefs that you can back up with solid economic reasoning and data then you have no need to be anonymous. The mainstream may not agree, but they will be forced to listen, and you will get published.»
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but that sounds very, very optimistic.
Also even if it were true, one advantage of pretending to be MS Economics is that it gets a complete pass on the "solid economic reasoning and data" requirement, as all it needs is to support the Central Truthiness of Economics, that the best distribution of income is mathemtically based on personal productivity and creativity, and viceversa. If the central truthiness is upheld, ridiculous assumptions, crass mathematical mistakes, and no data are all given a free pass (as it happened for Arrow-Debreu-Lucas and their happy successors). For example:
«But utility maximization does not require an agent's intention to maximize utility. If an agent has consistent preferences then economists can use utility maximization as a representation of that fact.»
But do agents have consistent preferences? That seems to have been disproven a lot of times by a lot of experiments, and anyhow it does not matter, because an aggregate of such agents does not have a convex utility function anyhow, except in the insane special case which is the foundation of all MS Economics (there is a single agent).
«No intentionality to max utils is needed on the part of the agent. So don't make mistakes like this and you will be fine.»
Sure, the mistakes to make are only those about ignoring the data and the maths that prevent from proving the central truthiness.
The burden of proof is all on those opposing the central truthiness, pox on their careers, and even those who persuasively and conclusively discharge that burden of proof as in the Cambridge capital controversy (only 50 years old) are simply ignored.
What I find freakin' hilarious is the comments about signing one's name, signed by 'anonymous'.
ReplyDelete