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 > >Source: >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