Dictionary of Now #9 | Philip Mirowski: Markets as Computer Programs in a Theory of Markets
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- Dictionary of Now #9 - MARKET
Dec 12, 2017
Lecture
Original version
More information:
www.hkw.de/dictionary
Film and production by Dusan Solomun - Věda a technologie
Yes, absolutely brilliant. What a cap off.
Tour de force. As expected from Philip😎
“If you’re not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek’s free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom.” ~ Michael Hudson
Brilliant!
Could anyone explain like I'm 5?
I watched this video and had a similar feeling.
That changed when I watched another of Philip Mirowski's lectures which was much more appropriate for lay people like myself.
Here is the link to the lecture: czcams.com/video/xfbVPDNl7V4/video.html
Hopefully it helps explain some of the concepts presented in the lecture above.
8:57 Perhaps I'm a bit confused. Is Philip saying that the *wrong* Maths is to use Reals? I'm assuming that's what he means because he says economics should be restricted to Rational numbers. So hypothetically, if someone buys a quantity of items for a given amount and the ratio of the exchange somehow works out to be sqrt(2), then we only take the approximate nearest Rational expression of the value as 1) no machine, including the semi mythical god market, can calculate the nth degree of an Irrational quickly enough in real time and 2) Rational numbers are close enough even for complex market transactions?
I know the likelihood of an exchange being exactly sqrt(2) is extremely low, but I just want to make sure my reasoning is clear on this point.
Steven Schneider Using rational numbers really means using rational numbers, be it the input set, or output set. So sqrt(2) doesn't appear as a solution.
IMHO it's a horrible argument on his side, and a needles distraction. (WHY OH WHY TRIP OVER SOMETHING SO TRIVIAL)
Math itself is abstraction, so why would anyone complain that certain math concepts do not correspond with the real world. If it's used consistently and it yields correct answers, then its fine.
There are no imaginary or complex quantities in the real world either, yet multiple physical theories use complex math in a highly successful manner.
I love the rest his ideas.
@science212 states "But we need to be rational" **Posits an unsupported, irrational claim about a system they like** The irony is strong with this one.
How is it any less rational than Walrasian assumptions he critiques?
Mirowski makes interesting arguments about markets as automata. But to serve his anti-liberal political agenda, he sinks into mischaracterization and non-sequitur.
Surely he knows that the relationship between institutions (property rights, etc.) and markets has been recognized for more than 60 years, with the law and economics school (those dastardly neoliberals!). Schumpeter had an understanding of evolutionary economics that is more developed than his own, though lacking the interesting intersection with the theory of automata. As his own historical work shows, the neoclassical paradigm is as likely to be used to support "scientific" socialist planning as free markets; Hayek and other liberals are as critical of the neoclassical paradigm as he is. His claim that the diversity of markets and their interdependence with institutions and structures "proves" that there is "no such thing" as a laissez-faire solution is a surprisingly silly non-sequitur. Political institutions can let a specific set of market mechanisms operate, or not, in any specific case; whether intervention in the market is needed or will make things better is an empirical question - and nothing about his argument says that state intervention will necessarily improve things. Notice also how the incentives and structures of politics are ignored, as they always are in cheap attacks on market liberalism. Presumably, government intervention is driven by a God-like "invisible hand" that never goes wrong, is never influenced by special interests or self-interested pursuit of power, it always just gets things right. And Yes, Phillip, the law of supply and demand does exist, or have you found markets in which prices don't go down as supply goes up? Maybe take a trip to your local gas station sometime and reconnect with basic market reality. At a critical point in this speech Mirowski declares, "that's what the left needs, a logical argument [against liberalism] not just a gut feeling." What he apparently doesn't understand is that "the left" may well need the kind of analysis he is offering, but it's not what they want. What they want is an excuse to get rid of markets altogether, and offering a more sophisticated take on how markets are historical, institutionally defined, and evolving doesn't really serve that agenda.
I highly recommend:
The Social Costs of Neoliberalism - Essays on the Economics of K. William Kapp
-a book by Sabastian Berger
Haven't we seen in the last few years that gas prices can also go up as supply and demand remain unchanged? This has been due to pricing power due to forces of market concentration.
AI is important. But we need to be rational.
Capitalism is the only rational system.
Mirowski is not for capitalism.