|
|
|
|
|
by js8
3208 days ago
|
|
> but because it makes the weakest assumptions about human behavior My memory on that is little hazy (it's been maybe 15 years ago I read about it), but as I remember this was the case about Blatt's model as well. And IIRC it's based on earlier ideas by Keynes (uncertainty is a different thing than risk). I also recall nice idea from Paul Ormerod (but it could have been somebody else or folklore) who had an interesting model of economic agents - do either one of the 3 things: - the thing that you always did - the thing that others are doing - another thing that you think might work This also leads to an interesting class of models (different from rational expectations) and it's not making too much assumptions about humans. Again, this shows that Blatt and Keen (and other post-keynesians) are woefully underappreciated in economics. |
|
I've got plenty of time for the post-Keynesians but most of them (particularly in the Keen Godley/Lavoie Social Accounting Matrix style) really aren't doing more complicated mathematics so much as choosing to have models far more sensitive to specified lag structures and/or using different assumptions about human behaviour (The flip side is that Keen's hypersensitive-to-how-it's-specified banking system is better in many respects than a macro model with no banking system or credit constraints) For much of the last century the Cambridge post Keynesians distinguished themselves by doing a lot less modelling than their neoclassical counterparts.