tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post58014033614193340..comments2023-11-19T20:38:50.237-08:00Comments on Economic Logic: Irregular phenomena and the macroeconomics research agendaEconomic Logicianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-28455697389426327112010-11-16T12:06:03.673-08:002010-11-16T12:06:03.673-08:00Welcome back Barkley, it was boring here without y...Welcome back Barkley, it was boring here without you.<br /><br />Minsky did not make anything useful in a quantitative sense. His theory includes a lot of hand-waving and nothing that allows to measure anything, let alone resolve ambiguities. In particular, it does not give any indications as to how large policy interventions should be, how large their effect would be, and whether second order effects could become important. The DSGE approach is trying to get at all these questions, how would you call this weak?Kansannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-31972111904049192192010-11-16T10:34:23.015-08:002010-11-16T10:34:23.015-08:00EL,
This is your weakest criticism of a critic of...EL,<br /><br />This is your weakest criticism of a critic of DSGE you have come up with yet. Vercelli knows more in his small toenail than you will in another 20 years and makes excellent points you address with empthy sloganeering. <br /><br />Asserting that DSGE is better because it is based on "fundamentals" and "microfoundations" when some of those are profoundly flawed, such as ratex, as Minsky well knew, the person Vercelli cites most heavily, is eyeball-rolling-inducing. The new stuff you and your sycophants push is very weak compared to Minsky. Vercelli makes excellent points not answered by either you or that new literature.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.com