琼·罗宾逊在1936年至1980年间编造的关于凯恩斯及其通论的诸多神话对宏观经济史的灾难性影响

M. E. Brady
{"title":"琼·罗宾逊在1936年至1980年间编造的关于凯恩斯及其通论的诸多神话对宏观经济史的灾难性影响","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3739898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The many, many myths created by Joan Robinson about J M Keynes and the General Theory, starting in the early 1930’s, have become embedded in the history of macroeconomics.<br><br>These myths, such as the claim that Joan Robinson worked closely with Keynes on the writing of the General Theory, that R. Kahn developed, explained and taught Keynes the theory of the multiplier, that there was no IS-LM model in the General Theory, that J. Hicks originated and developed the IS-LM model in the April,1937 issue of Econometrica, that fundamental uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty related to Keynes’ Evidential Weight of the Argument concept from his A Treatise on Probability (1921) ,was the central foundation of the General Theory, that Kalecki had written a version of Keynes’s General Theory in 1933-1935 in Polish that covered Keynes’s Theory of Effective Demand, that Keynes had not taken the 20 minutes necessary to learn the theory of value, that there was no formal, mathematical, microeconomic foundations in the General Theory, that Keynes did not understand the purpose of the General Theory and had to have it explained to him, that the General Theory was written as a chain of literary statements without the use of mathematical analysis, that Keynes was a Marshallian who had destroyed all of his mathematical analysis in the General Theory before publishing it, etc., are all simply the silly, stupid, foolish unexamined assertions of a mathematically illiterate economist who, due to her extreme mathematical and statistical ignorance, could not pass a sixth grade grammar school introduction to elementary algebra.<br><br>An examination of a 2019 paper by G. Akerlof shows how deeply these myths of Joan Robinson have become entrenched in the history of macroeconomics. It is simply not possible for economics to be called scientific, much less a science, given the extent of this mythology, of which I have barely scratched the surface in my discussions about examples above. I can find no claim made about J M Keynes or the General Theory made by Joan Robinson in her lifetime that is not at least partially or completely false.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Catastrophic Impact That the Many Myths Created by Joan Robinson Between 1936 and 1980 About J M Keynes and the General Theory Have Had on Macroeconomic History\",\"authors\":\"M. E. Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3739898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The many, many myths created by Joan Robinson about J M Keynes and the General Theory, starting in the early 1930’s, have become embedded in the history of macroeconomics.<br><br>These myths, such as the claim that Joan Robinson worked closely with Keynes on the writing of the General Theory, that R. Kahn developed, explained and taught Keynes the theory of the multiplier, that there was no IS-LM model in the General Theory, that J. Hicks originated and developed the IS-LM model in the April,1937 issue of Econometrica, that fundamental uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty related to Keynes’ Evidential Weight of the Argument concept from his A Treatise on Probability (1921) ,was the central foundation of the General Theory, that Kalecki had written a version of Keynes’s General Theory in 1933-1935 in Polish that covered Keynes’s Theory of Effective Demand, that Keynes had not taken the 20 minutes necessary to learn the theory of value, that there was no formal, mathematical, microeconomic foundations in the General Theory, that Keynes did not understand the purpose of the General Theory and had to have it explained to him, that the General Theory was written as a chain of literary statements without the use of mathematical analysis, that Keynes was a Marshallian who had destroyed all of his mathematical analysis in the General Theory before publishing it, etc., are all simply the silly, stupid, foolish unexamined assertions of a mathematically illiterate economist who, due to her extreme mathematical and statistical ignorance, could not pass a sixth grade grammar school introduction to elementary algebra.<br><br>An examination of a 2019 paper by G. Akerlof shows how deeply these myths of Joan Robinson have become entrenched in the history of macroeconomics. It is simply not possible for economics to be called scientific, much less a science, given the extent of this mythology, of which I have barely scratched the surface in my discussions about examples above. I can find no claim made about J M Keynes or the General Theory made by Joan Robinson in her lifetime that is not at least partially or completely false.\",\"PeriodicalId\":226815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从20世纪30年代初开始,琼•罗宾逊(Joan Robinson)创造了许许多多关于凯恩斯和《通论》(General Theory)的神话,这些神话已经深深地嵌入了宏观经济学的历史。这些神话,比如琼·罗宾逊与凯恩斯密切合作撰写通论,卡恩发展、解释并教授凯恩斯乘数理论,通论中没有IS-LM模型,希克斯在1937年4月的《计量经济学》上创立并发展了IS-LM模型,基本的不确定性,与凯恩斯在《概率论》(1921)中提出的论证的证据权重概念的不确定性相反,这种不确定性是《通论》的核心基础,卡莱茨基在1933-1935年用波兰语写了一个版本的《通论》,涵盖了凯恩斯的有效需求理论,凯恩斯没有花20分钟必要的时间来学习价值理论,《通论》中没有正式的、数学的、微观经济的基础,凯恩斯不明白《通论》的目的,必须有人向他解释,《通论》是由一连串的文学陈述写成的,没有使用数学分析,凯恩斯是一个马歇尔主义者,在《通论》出版之前就把他在《通论》中的所有数学分析都毁了,等等,这些都是一个不懂数学的经济学家愚蠢、愚蠢、未经检验的断言,由于她对数学和统计的极度无知,她无法通过六年级文法学校的初级代数入门课程。对G.阿克洛夫(G. Akerlof) 2019年发表的一篇论文的研究表明,琼·罗宾逊的这些神话在宏观经济学史上是多么根深蒂固。考虑到这种神话的程度,经济学根本不可能被称为科学,更不用说一门科学了。在我对上述例子的讨论中,我几乎没有触及到这种神话的表面。在我看来,关于凯恩斯或琼•罗宾逊生前提出的《通论》的任何论断,至少部分或完全是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Catastrophic Impact That the Many Myths Created by Joan Robinson Between 1936 and 1980 About J M Keynes and the General Theory Have Had on Macroeconomic History
The many, many myths created by Joan Robinson about J M Keynes and the General Theory, starting in the early 1930’s, have become embedded in the history of macroeconomics.

These myths, such as the claim that Joan Robinson worked closely with Keynes on the writing of the General Theory, that R. Kahn developed, explained and taught Keynes the theory of the multiplier, that there was no IS-LM model in the General Theory, that J. Hicks originated and developed the IS-LM model in the April,1937 issue of Econometrica, that fundamental uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty related to Keynes’ Evidential Weight of the Argument concept from his A Treatise on Probability (1921) ,was the central foundation of the General Theory, that Kalecki had written a version of Keynes’s General Theory in 1933-1935 in Polish that covered Keynes’s Theory of Effective Demand, that Keynes had not taken the 20 minutes necessary to learn the theory of value, that there was no formal, mathematical, microeconomic foundations in the General Theory, that Keynes did not understand the purpose of the General Theory and had to have it explained to him, that the General Theory was written as a chain of literary statements without the use of mathematical analysis, that Keynes was a Marshallian who had destroyed all of his mathematical analysis in the General Theory before publishing it, etc., are all simply the silly, stupid, foolish unexamined assertions of a mathematically illiterate economist who, due to her extreme mathematical and statistical ignorance, could not pass a sixth grade grammar school introduction to elementary algebra.

An examination of a 2019 paper by G. Akerlof shows how deeply these myths of Joan Robinson have become entrenched in the history of macroeconomics. It is simply not possible for economics to be called scientific, much less a science, given the extent of this mythology, of which I have barely scratched the surface in my discussions about examples above. I can find no claim made about J M Keynes or the General Theory made by Joan Robinson in her lifetime that is not at least partially or completely false.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets": A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Deepening and Widening Social Identity Analysis in Economics In Search of Santa Claus: Samuelson, Stigler, and Coase Theorem Worlds Reports from China: Joan Robinson as Observer and Travel Writer, 1953-78 Introduction to a Symposium on Carl Menger on the Centenary of his Death
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1