Twattery

I am aware that the terms neoliberal and neoclassical are technically the same in economic theory – but neoliberal does clearly imply a particular political approach to the issue which explains my preference for the term

No, they\’re not.

Neo-classical is Jevons etc, encoded by Marshall: the bloke who taught Keynes.

Neo-liberal is, when it means anything other than \”stuff Ritchie doesn\’t like\” means Friedman, Hayek, Mont Pelerin etc.

Neoclassical incorporates the concept of the margin (the marginalist revolution) into classical economics.

Keynes\’ theories incorporate a lot of such neoclassicism of course: see marginal propensity to consume for example, marginal propensity to save.

You can\’t get to Keynesianism without neoclassicism. You can without neo-liberalism, of course.

This book is actually going to be worse than I thought it was.

25 comments on “Twattery

  1. its becoming pointless posting on RM’s blog – he wont post anything he dosent have an argument against.

    his latest idea is for eveyone to stop buying anything sold by a company with overseas tax havens.

    he hasnt posted my comment asking if he will stop buying the guardian or contributing articles to it (they are a known user of tax havens).

  2. Crikey, Tim, 7 blogposts already and you’ve only read 2 pages! Anyone know where I can get industrial quantities of popcorn?

  3. When you get through it (and if any Portuguese entrepreneurs feel like making a killing on antacids, now’s your chance), are you going to write a full review for the gutter press, perhaps even your Forbes blog?

    My sympathies to any cats ejected from your lap during an eruption.

  4. You can always count on this character to surprise – on the downside.

    Maybe we should call him a “neo-idiot”.

  5. Surely neo-liberalism is a political ideology borne out of neo-classical economic theory?

    No?

    Tim adds: No. What you and Ritchie fail to realise is that neo-classical theory underpins all modern economic theory. Keynes as well. About the only people who don’t use it are the Marxists and the neo-Ricardians.

  6. marksany I doubt it. Early indicators are that this is a straight consolidation of his blog. He has clearly not been able to reflect on the comments he has had over the years (not least from our host) and take the opportunity to..ahem…update some of his language. More fule him. He could have taken this chance to update the whole neo-classical/liberal thing for example and wrote off his blog as a typo/work in progress type thing.

  7. Looks like the Rumble in the Jungle has already started.

    Tim, you are going to need bananas AND Marmite.

  8. We are sure that it’s not a work of fiction being critiqued here? The author as well as the tome – there’s argument for Murphy being the L Ron Hubbard of our times.

    There’s one hell of a lucrative market out there for books on ancient astronauts & astrology. Tempted to write one myself. All it takes is imagination.

    What the Mirthful one is saying is what klutz’s like Arnald want to hear. Demand + entrepreneur = product.

    It’s not as if the left haven’t got form on this. We’ve just had the Hari saga.

  9. Admirable, amusing, correct and sensible though all these sequential posts about Murphy’s book may be, is it not the case that the various victories won in them are like mosquito bites to a rhinoceros?

    Murphy is becoming more and more visible to the public and is winning the war by a considerable margin.

  10. BraveFart: It keeps him off the streets, and gives us a bit more time before Big Scandium has us all toiling in the rare earth mines.

  11. @18
    How far from that are we? The Revelations as given to Richard Murphy prophet & seer Overturner of the tables of the money-changers.

    Snake oil salesman.

  12. I think BraveFart has a point. I don’t mean that fisking the book is pointless, but that RM has a much higher public profile than his detractors. Also, when I have heard him on the radio, he has been much more eloquent than the people up against him. He may come out with questionable assertions, but he does so very confidently and his detractors often fail to rebut them convicingly, if at all. This leaves people with the impression that he has won the argument.

  13. …..when I have heard him on the radio, he has been much more eloquent than the people up against him…..

    No doubt his opponents are carefully chosen.

    I remember BBC shows from many years back when their EU Sceptic of choice was David Mellor, rancid enough to almost make me a Federast.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.