The economist, not the the guy that hates Muslims.
I haven't gotten the chance to read it yet, but his new book looks very interesting
http://www.anwarshaikhecon.org/index.php/80-home-page/113-capitolism-new-book-by-anwar-shaikh
"The book’s approach is very different from that of both orthodox economics and the dominant elements in the heterodox tradition. There is no reference whatsoever to an idealized framework rooted in perfect firms, perfect individuals, perfect knowledge, perfectly selfish behavior, rational expectations, and so-called optimal outcomes. Nor is there any need to explain particular observed patterns as departures from this Edenic state arising from “imperfections” of various sorts. The book develops microeconomic and macroeconomic theory from real behavior and real competition, and uses it to explain empirical patterns in microeconomic demand and supply, wage and profits, technological change, relative prices of goods and services, interest rates, bond and equity prices, exchange rates, patterns of international trade, growth, unemployment, inflation, national and personal inequality, and the recurrence of general crises such as the current one which began in 2007-2008. "
I think he identifies with the "classical tradition" and is close to post-keynesians. However, he seems more into Marx than Sraffa. Michael Roberts wrote a piece anticipating this book:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/capitalism-and-anwar-shaikh/
Thoughts on this guy's work? Worth looking into?
I think he is fascinating. He
I think he is fascinating. He has an essay which clearly and briefly summarises strains of thought in crisis theory.
He published a book in the 90s 'Measuring the Wealth of Nations' which looks at National Accounting and tries to do the same sort of stuff but in a Marxist fashion. The basic shift here, is that Marxists seperate the economy into production and consumption spheres a lot differently than bourgeois economists. In fact, as Shaikh and Tomak argue, there is overlap in Marx and Smith and Staff (iirc) contra neoclassical economists on this count. Further their categorizations make more sense on the face of it.
I actually bought his latest text which is very large but also very clearly organized. I'm studying economics right now and am constantly frustrated by the 'fantasy world' inhabited by those seeking to explain microeconomic phenomenon and macro economic phenomenon in linked ways using equilibrium theory, welfare economics, coase etc.
I haven't been able to dig deep into 'Capitalism' but I read the intro and a bit of his section arguing against setting macro econ on strictly micro foundations. It was convincing.
My largest challenge is the calculus and statistics involved but I'm about to finish calculus 1 this semester and taking stats in the fall.
In general it seems that Shaikh's greatest application is that he actively engages in ongoing economic debates from a marxian framework, especially those which purport to 'mathematic' levels of certainty.
I'm looking forward to
I'm looking forward to reading it hopefully this summer, don't have time right now as it seems like a heavy tome. There's also an online lecture series on it by the author: http://www.hgsss.org/anwar-m-shaikh-capitalism-competition-conflict-and-crises/
Why would someone down vote Pennoids post?
Quote: Why would someone down
*Puts on wild west hat*
'cuz they're chickenshit.
Pennoid wrote: I think he is
Pennoid
Good luck on those stats. Econometrics was difficult for me when I took it, even though in practice, with a computer, its all pretty easy. But the theory behind statistics took a while for me to fully understand.
Don't even get me started on calc. But I have to admit, I never found much interesting about math until I learned some calc and stats
I got downvoted for that last
I got downvoted for that last comment? What did i do wrong?
The up/down system is
The up/down system is irrational and inexplicable. Don't even worry about it.