[Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers

[Steve Palmer]

Bit weird to attack economists in this way since 'economics' has largely become a branch of applied mathematics.

Which is precisely the problem. No mathematics is any stronger than its underlying theory. Mathematics is simply a language for expressing relationships and to fetishize any particular mathematical technique or approach is pointless. It's a bit like saying, if only they'd used Swahili instead of Twi, then it would all be clear. The focus needs to be on the underlying theory, whether or not it can be adequately modelled mathematically. Bourgeois capital theory had its knees blown off thirty years ago, but the bourgeois 'economists' are still staggering around on its stumps as if nothing had happened.

Interesting is the vain hope that if only they had a better technique, they'd be able to avoid the inevitable as if this is all the result of stubborn minds, a methodological mistake. Dream on Messrs les bourgeois!

The credit markets remain locked. They have days, not weeks before thousands of businesses go to the wall and millions of workers get released. Then we'll see what's going on using simple arithmetic.

Steve

"I study a lot. That is one of the responsibilities of every revolutionary." Hugo Chavez.


--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 10:21 PM
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Steve Palmer
> <spalmer999 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > What is meant by 'collapse', 'crisis'
> etc? In opponents of crisis theory, the
> > straw-man dummy version is usually the idea that
> 'collapse' means that
> > capitalism just falls flat on its face, all of its own
> accord, at some point,
> > unable ever to rise again. I don't think Marx
> thought that, ever, certainly not
> > in 1857-8, and Henryk Grossman didn't think that.
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01buchanan.html?ref=opinion>
> 
> "Financial crises may emerge naturally from the very
> makeup of
> markets, as competition between investment enterprises sets
> up a race
> for higher leverage, driving markets toward a precipice
> that we cannot
> recognize even as we approach it. The model offers a
> potential
> explanation of why we have another crisis narrative every
> few years,
> with only the names and details changed. [...]
> 
> Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant
> to embrace
> this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to
> the
> traditional equilibrium picture). This seems decidedly
> peculiar given
> that every other branch of science from physics to
> molecular biology
> has embraced computational modeling as an invaluable tool
> for gaining
> insight into complex systems of many interacting parts,
> where the
> links between causes and effect can be tortuously
> convoluted.
> 
> Something of the attitude of economic traditionalists
> spilled out a
> number of years ago at a conference where economists and
> physicists
> met to discuss new approaches to economics. As one
> physicist who was
> there tells me, a prominent economist objected that the use
> of
> computational models amounted to "cheating" or
> "peeping behind the
> curtain," and that respectable economics, by contrast,
> had to be
> pursued through the proof of infallible mathematical
> theorems.
> 
> If we're really going to avoid crises, we're going
> to need something
> more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude
> to how
> science can help us understand how markets really work.
> Done properly,
> computer simulation represents a kind of "telescope
> for the mind,"
> multiplying human powers of analysis and insight just as a
> telescope
> does our powers of vision. With simulations, we can
> discover
> relationships that the unaided human mind, or even the
> human mind
> aided with the best mathematical analysis, would never
> grasp. [...]"
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a
> message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/spalmer999%40yahoo.com