- Tapa blanda: 300 páginas
- Editor: Routledge; Edición: 2 (18 de abril de 1996)
- Colección: Routledge Foundations of the Market Economy
- Idioma: Inglés
- ISBN-10: 0415121205
- ISBN-13: 978-0415121200
- Valoración media de los clientes: Sé el primero en opinar sobre este producto
Compara Precios en Amazon
+ Envío GRATIS
The Economics of Time and Ignorance: With a New Introduction (Routledge Foundations of the Market Economy) (Inglés) Tapa blanda – 18 abr 1996
Descripción del producto
"This is a superb book. In terms of style, tone, and execution, it is flawless. It is a distinctly Austrian contribution. At the same time, it is an original, and indeed a very creative work. . .it strikes me that "The Economics of Time and Ignorance has all the makings of a classic."-Bruce J. Caldwell, "Southern Economic Journal "The title of this valuable work. . .comes from a remark of J. M. Keynes: The social object of skilled investment should be to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance which envelop our future.' The moral of this work however is that time and ignorance are not so much dark forces to be defeated as unavoidable aspects of the human condition that must be lived with. . . The major task of the authors, which they have accomplished with considerable success is to integrate the Austrian, subjective approach to economic theory with that of its close relations in post-Keynesians and a few of those lone rebels against neo-classical orthodoxy."-Kenneth Boulding, "American Journal of Sociology ..." O'Driscoll and Rizzo's book remains an Austrian classic ... [I]t still deserves to be read by serious academics across the political and economic spectrum."-"Review of Radical Political Economics "Perhaps now the Austrians will be allowed to help renovate economics."-"The Times Literary Supplement
Reseña del editor
The Economics of Time and Ignorance is one of the seminal works in modern Austrian economics. Its treatment of historical time and of uncertainty helped set the agenda for the remarkable revival of work in the Austrian tradition which has led to an ever wider interest in the once heretical ideas of Austrian economics. It is here reprinted with a substantial new introductory essay, outlining the major developments in the area since its original publication a decade ago.Ver Descripción del producto
No es necesario ningún dispositivo Kindle. Descárgate una de las apps de Kindle gratuitas para comenzar a leer libros Kindle en tu smartphone, tablet u ordenador.
Obtén la app gratuita:
Detalles del producto
Si eres el vendedor de este producto, ¿te gustaría sugerir ciertos cambios a través del servicio de atención al vendedor?
Opiniones de clientes
|5 estrellas (0%)|
|4 estrellas (0%)|
|3 estrellas (0%)|
|2 estrellas (0%)|
|1 estrella (0%)|
Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com
Following the work of Mises and Hayek, the authors of this book examine the implications of how knowledge develops through time. As people interact, they learn and change data relevant to their economic plans. We learn and create knowledge simultaneously, and do this differently depending upon the choices we make. Consequently, convergence on equilibrium conditions in markets is not inevitable, and may not even be possible. This makes the concepts of 'real time' and 'ignorance' that the authors discuss relevant to all economics analysis.
This allows us to consider information problems other than second best rational ignorance. We not only know that we do not know some things. We face gaps in our data concerning what we consider finding out about.
This does not mean that equilibrating forces do not exist. It means only that we must consider open ended processes in markets. This is not a new proposition. Adam Smith, the founder of economics as a distinct discipline, thought in evolutionary and process orientated terms.
If there is anything wrong with this book, it is that the authors might be a little too dismissive of conventional economics. Conventional notions of supply, demand, and equilibrium help us to understand economics more than the authors will admit. This approach simplifies many real world complexities. The static approach is not entirely unreal, and does contain enough reality to play an important role in economic analysis. Mainstream economists should, however, be mindful of the extent to which static optimization models fail to explain real world phenomena.
Neither coauthor has any understanding of Keynes's technical exposition in Parts II and III of the TP and Boole's interval estimate analysis in chapters 16-21 of LT upon which the TP is based.The General Theory(GT) is an application of the TP.The failure to understand or accept this connection explains why the Austrian/ Post Keynesian views ,which are based on Shackle ,who completely rejected the TP after reading through the first few pages,are generally erroneous.
The errors in this book occur right from the start:
"More importantly,there exists a deep contradiction between the mechanical,aggregative method and the non-formalized subjectivist message(Lachman,1984,p.7).Unfortunately,Keynes never resolved this contradiction,and thus it prevented him from seeing the full implications of subjectivism.His statement about the dark forces of time and ignorance was made in the context of advocating government management of major investment decisions.He apparently never saw the limitation that real time and ignorance place on policy makers "(p.8).
Keynes's references to the dark forces of time and ignorance occur in chapter 12 of the General Theory(GT;p.155,157)in his discussions of the massive,undepletable,detrimental ,negative externality effects on aggregate employment and output that can be imposed on capitalistic societies by Wall Street speculators.Nowhere,except in the wild imaginations of libertarians and anarcho capitalists ,such as the two authors,does Keynes advocate government management of major investment decisions in the private sector.This wild distortion of reality comes from the deliberate misrepresentation of Keynes's policies discussed on pp.374-381 and specifically on p.378 of the GT.The specifics of Keynes's policies are spelt out on pp.225-410 of Volume 27 of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes( CWJMK).The authors sorely need to read this book and revise their nonsense about Keynes's " socialization of investment " tale accordingly.Dwight David Eisenhower's plan for the construction of the American interstate highway and freeway systems is a typical example of the provision of public goods being planned and directed by the government but actually carried out by the private sector according to Keynes's " socialization of investment ".This truly Keynesian approach was abandoned in the mid to late 1970's by the deregulation of the transportation system carried out by Jimmy Carter's libertarian economist ,Alfred Kahn.The result of Kahn's blunders is that the current transportation system in America needs to spend 12.5 Trillion dollars in order to obtain a B+ rating.Keynes would never have deregulated the transportation system.He would have made sure that there was sufficient spending in place to maintain and modernize the transportation system every year.The direct,indirect and induced multiplier effects generated by such spending would have maintained America's transportation system while creating/generating employment that would have minimized involuntary unemployment through time.
What is the alleged (1) " Keynes's mechanical aggregative method " referring to ? The authors appear to be completely ignorant of the microfoundations supplied by Keynes in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT where Keynes incorporates expectations , his weight of the evidence index and the degree of confidence in his elasticity analysis on pp.304-306 of the GT within a frame work of purely competitive firms.What is Keynes's (2) " non formalized subjectivist message "? Keynes integrated his TP aproach explicitly into the GT in plain English terms on pp.208-209 which the two authors have simply skipped.These pages allow a non mathematically trained reader to come to the same conclusions demonstrated by Keynes technically in his formal elasticity analysis carried out on pp.304-306 of the GT.
The authors then claim that " Keynes never resolved the contradiction" between (1) and (2) .Of course,Keynes never had to resolve any contradiction between (1) and (2) because there is no contradiction.Keynes was a lifelong opponent of any kind of demand management approach based on fine tuning the economy through changes in fiscal policy (changing tax rates) and /or changes in monetary policy(changing the rate of interest(bank rate)).Keynes was an advocate of rules.His rules are the same as Adam Smith's rules aimed at getting loans into the hands of the sober people and away from the hands of projectors,imprudent risk takers,and prodigals.First,fix the rate of interest at a low level and keep it there permanently.Second ,make sure that the unsatisfied fringe of borrowers seeking bank loans in congested loan markets consists of speculators and rentiers and not long run investors.This rule is practically the same as Adam Smith's rule that banks can't lend to projectors,prodigals, and imprudent risk takers if they do not want to destroy the savings deposits of the sober people .Third,impose a government transfer tax on all stock market transactions .Fourth, make sure that the overall tax structure is a progressive one.
The last false claim , that " Keynes never saw the limitations that real time and ignorance place on policy makers " is directly refuted by Keynes himself innumerable times in Volume 27 of the CWJMK .
Let us now turn to p.9.The authors make the bizarre claim that Paul Davidson's Shacklean,Post Keynesian views,that there is only certainty and uncertainty,is a continuation of those parts of the GT that represent a true subjectivist position.Unfortunately,Shackle never got past chapter 3 of the TP and rejected Keynes's entire TP approach in toto.Neither Shackle nor Davidson are followers of Keynes because Keynes totally rejected nihilism and the bizarre Shackle-Davidson claim that there are no degrees/gradations of uncertainty which Keynes spelt out clearly in his 1937 QJE article, titled " The General Theory of Employment " .Uncertainty is a range that can be specified in the same identical manner as Keynes's weight of the evidence index,w.Complete and total uncertainty(ignorance) would have a w=0.The differing gradations of uncertainty would be between 0 and 1(0<w<1).Complete certainty would have a w=1.The two authors never specify what their term "genuine " uncertainty is.Their discussions of the beauty contest example(p.156,GT),which is a continuation of a discussion started by Keynes in his introductory chapter 3 of the TP in 1921(1908) on the measurement of probabilities,does not fit the bill.
I can recommend this book for purchase ,in spite of its catalog of errors about Keynes, because the authors deal effectively with various neoclassical deficiencies .The value of the book would arise from their useful critique of standard neoclassical economics and not from any discussion of Keynes .