Timeline for Why did the Cambridge Capital Controversy have no impact on economic modelling?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29 at 19:02 | history | edited | EconJohn♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 20, 2022 at 16:01 | history | edited | EconJohn♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2021 at 10:55 | comment | added | EB3112 | No problem. I think you deserve a lot of praise for drawing attention to the CCC in the post. I find some of the comments/articles linked on this post reasonably misleading however. Standard economics may have 'reacted'. But building models to by-pass the critique, is not the same as internalising it. I find post-Keynesian economists like Lavoie provide a useful account of the debate, beyond those already given by Harcourt ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/… | |
| Jul 12, 2021 at 0:15 | comment | added | EconJohn♦ | @EB3112 Oh wow I didn't know there was a presentation on that paper by farhi. Thank you! | |
| Jul 10, 2021 at 1:44 | comment | added | SystemTheory | Here is the direct link to another 20 page paper MIT and the Other Cambridge on the subject matter: paulromer.net/posts/2015/pdf/…. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 22:18 | answer | added | 1muflon1♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 18:24 | comment | added | EB3112 | It's a good question. My understanding is that the core of the debate is that 'distribution can or cannot be treated separately from growth/accumulation.' If you can prove that it does not, then marginalism should be scrapped. This would clearly cause a problem for GE-type modelling and modern economic theory. But nevertheless, I've not read about the topic since my undergraduate days. And the last time I heard it mention was by Emmanuel Fahri who acknowledged how it should be considered in modern economic modelling, here: youtube.com/watch?v=QRFRuj0myTI | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 17:45 | comment | added | SystemTheory | This paper (available for download under this splash page) appears to outline the theories and arguments involved in the cambridge capital controversy: aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003321165010. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 15:00 | history | asked | EconJohn♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |