RE: [OPE] Chris Harman on the spectre of Keynesianism

Date: Sat May 17 2008 - 03:10:53 EDT

> I agree to some extent with this. However, for the prediction of short-term trends, a lot of theory is often unnecessary - just a careful study of 
> empirical trends is often sufficient. But Keynesian theorists failed spectacularly even in forecasting shortterm trends.
Hi Jurriaan:
Who - if anyone - has a better record?  
Journalists, business economists, and economists employed by states and unions (whatever their theoretical perspective) have a record, I 
think, which is even worse (due in part, to an inherent bias).
Marxian economists don't have a stellar record on this either.
> . In my experience, Marxists often assumed that Marx's economic theory has a direct and immediate empirical relevance, when it only 
> described the essence of phenomena, and this results in confusing short-term and long-term tendencies.

Right. There's often a fallacy that is applied to the examination of concrete
questions - that the answers to those questions can be deduced directly 
from abstract theory. In a way, that's an example of  the fallacy of division.
In solidarity, Jerry

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT