[OPE-L:6196] Re: Re: econometrics

From: Patrick L. Mason (pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 18 2001 - 21:41:54 EST

Econometrics "is after all a branch of neo-neoclassical analysis."

Sorry, Jerry, this is just plain wrong.

At 07:19 AM 11/18/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Re [6191]:
>Hi Jurriaan. It's good to hear from you.
> > Insofar as econometrics is concerned with the measurement of economic
> > trends in order to build models and extrapolate future trends (make
> > predictions), this is surely a worthwhile pursuit for the followers of
> > Marx. <snip, JL>
> > The point of economic
> > research is rather to bring theory and the data closer together, so that
> > theory is disciplined by the data of experience, and the study of the data
> > is informed and guided by theory. Econometric techniques are certainly
> > useful in this regard ! <snip, JL>
>1) I reject the overly broad description that you give above [in the first
>sentence] for econometrics.
>2) You have risen to the defense of what I, and some others, might call
>"Quantitative Marxism"  Yet, I have not questioned the need for quantitative
>empirical analysis by Marxists -- I have questioned the use of econometrics
>by Marxists. Thus your reply does not seem to me to be very responsive
>to the issues I raised.
>3) Some non-econometric quantitative methods include input-output
>analysis, game theory, and chaos theory. This, of course, does not suggest
>that there are not problems with those methods -- but the point that I
>want to make here is that they represent *alternative* methods for
>conducting empirical analysis. Indeed one might argue that they can
>represent *preferable* methods (e.g. in the article by J. Coakley
>in *Quantitative Marxism* after offering a critique of econometric models
>regarding stock market efficiency, the author concludes not by offering
>an alternative econometric formalization but rather by claiming that
>  "...only the chaos theory approach and, to a lesser extent, the speculative
>bubbles model appear to capture these features within a quantitative
>framework. Marxian economists should take up these issues and begin to
>challenge the hegemony of orthodox theories of financial markets", p. 122).
>3) Both micro and macro econometric studies have employed, amongst
>other absurdities, factor (of production) analysis (and all that implies
>regarding factor endowments and productivity) and production functions
>(imagine the audacity of anyone employing an aggregate production
>function after 1960!).  My question concerns whether econometrics,
>which is after all a branch of neo-neoclassical analysis, is necessarily
>wedded to or can be divorced from marginalism.
>In solidarity, Jerry
>Paul Dunne *Quantitative Marxism*,  London,  Polity Press, 1991
>[ISBN 0 -7456 - 0647 - 4], Out-of-print

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EST