|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Johannes Buchner |
| Abstract: | The aim of this article is to present elements and discuss the potential of a research program at the intersection between mathematics and heterodox economics, which we call Criticial Mathematical Economics (CME). We propose to focus on the mathematical and model-theoretic foundations of controversies in economic policy, and aim at providing an entrance to the literature and an invitation to mathematicians that are potentially interested in such a project. From our point of view, mathematics has been partly misused in mainstream economics to justify `unregulated markets' before the financial crisis. We thus identify two key parts of CME, which leads to a natural structure of this article: The frst focusses on an analysis and critique of mathematical models used in mainstream economics, like e.g. the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) in Macroeconomics and the so-called "Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu"-Theorems. The aim of the second part is to improve and extend heterodox models using ingredients from modern mathematics and computer science, a method with strong relation to Complexity Economics. We exemplify this idea by describing how methods from Non-Linear Dynamics have been used in what could be called "The Dynamical Systems approach to Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics", and also discuss (Pseudo-) Goodwin cycles and possible Micro- and Mesofoundations. We conclude by giving an outlook in which areas a collaboration between mathematicians and heterodox economists could be most promising. The focus lies on the mathematical and model-theoretic foundations of controversies in economic policy, and we discuss both existing projects in such a direction as well as areas where new models for policy advice are most needed from the perspective of the progressive political left. |
| Date: | 2025–02 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2502.06015 |
| By: | Woodcock, Ramsi |
| Abstract: | The emerging law and political economy movement (LPE) in the United States has mistakenly conflated the conservative law and economics movement of the mid-20th century with law and economics generally. As a result, LPE has failed to draw upon a rich tradition of left-wing law and economic thought that predates the conservative law and economics movement and would provide LPE with powerful analytic tools. Law and economics is not inherently conservative. Indeed, progressives themselves created the field a century ago. The centerpiece of this early work consisted of two key points about the neoclassical approach to economics. The first was that policymakers can structure markets efficiently to produce any distribution of wealth that they desire. In contemporary parlance, law determines the market. The second was that even if a policymaker is constrained to accept a particular market structure, every market generates a surplus that policymakers can in principle redistribute through price regulation or taxation without harming efficiency. In mistakenly rejecting law and economics as enemy propaganda, LPE has found itself fighting old battles or unable to make intellectual headway in new ones. The movement has treated as a major new discovery the now century-old proposition that law determines the market. Unaware of the proposition’s history, LPE has also failed to grasp that conservative law and economics long ago accepted that proposition and parried by arguing that the market also determines the law. This has prevented LPE from offering a rejoinder—a glaring omission given the role this counterattack played in the demise of the New Deal state. Lacking the concept of economic surplus that left-wing law and economics spent so much time developing a century ago, LPE has also found itself unable to appreciate the great variety of the sources of economic power. LPE has instead tended to attribute all economic power to monopoly, leading to a focus on antitrust policy when taxation and rate regulation are more likely to achieve progressive goals. |
| Date: | 2023–03–31 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:twbrk_v1 |
| By: | Gustavo Lima Moura |
| Abstract: | This article analytically describes the contributions of Keynesian theory in the post-World War I context, by means of a synoptic reading of the bibliographical sources indicated, the Keynesian theory within its own historical and philosophical context. The discussion covers the main concepts of his theory. The aim is, through the excerpts highlighted in the article, to briefly contextualize the origins of the ideas of John Maynard Keynes' economic thought. |
| Date: | 2025–02 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2502.20413 |
| By: | Juskowiak, Piotr |
| Abstract: | In this article, I ask how Henri Lefebvre’s oeuvre can contribute to the foundations for a metromarxist theory of urban commoning. To provide an answer to this question I discuss three main areas in which his thinking about the common emerges – his anthropology, philosophy of the urban, and politics of autogestion. This allows me to emphasize the multidimensionality of the Lefebvre-minded commoning, which manifests itself not only at the level of local activism but also touches the dimensions of the production of subjectivity and the constitution of the urban. Read in this way, Lefebvre’s theory of urban commoning helps us to move beyond some of the limitations of the existing discussion of urban commons, as well as to make room for a more fruitful dialogue between urban scholars and autonomist Marxists. It also equips us with an alternative conceptual framework that potentially enhances post-Lefebvrian projects of direct urban democracy. |
| Date: | 2023–04–22 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:5gwbk_v1 |
| By: | Pascal Stiefenhofer |
| Abstract: | The emergence of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) labor, including AI agents and autonomous systems operating at near-zero marginal cost, reduces the marginal productivity of human labor, ultimately pushing wages toward zero. As AGI labor and capital replace human workers, economic power shifts to capital owners, resulting in extreme wealth concentration, rising inequality, and reduced social mobility. The collapse of human wages causes aggregate demand to deteriorate, creating a paradox where firms produce more using AGI, yet fewer consumers can afford to buy goods. To prevent economic and social instability, new economic structures must emerge, such as Universal Basic Income (UBI), which redistributes AGI-generated wealth, public or cooperative AGI ownership, ensuring broader access to AI-driven profits, and progressive AGI capital taxation, which mitigates inequality and sustains aggregate demand. Addressing these challenges in form of renegotiation the Social Contract is crucial to maintaining economic stability in a post-labor economy. |
| Date: | 2025–02 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2502.07050 |